Employer National Insurance Contributions (New Businesses)
David Gauke Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are determined that all parts of the UK benefit from sustainable economic growth, and that the private sector recovery is particularly strong in areas that are currently overly dependent on the public sector.
To help deliver this on 22 June 2010, the Chancellor announced the launch of a regional employer national insurance contributions holiday for new businesses (the holiday). The holiday comes into operation today, and will last until 5 September 2013. The holiday reduces employment costs for qualifying new businesses set up from 22 June 2010 outside Greater London, the South East and East of England. In doing so, it will directly provide an incentive to encourage enterprise and business growth.
On 27 August, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs published a technical note that included an overview of the scheme, draft clauses and draft explanatory notes. This was in order to provide as much certainty and clarity as possible to employers in qualifying businesses so that they are able to take advantage of the holiday from today.
Copies of the technical note have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and is also available on the HMRC website: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/august.htm.
The draft clauses will be included in the forthcoming National Insurance Contributions Bill that will be introduced in the autumn.
Tax Policy Documents
David Gauke Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are today publishing nine documents relating to tax, following commitments made at the Budget. The Government set out their new approach to tax policy making at the Budget, designed to support their ambition for a more predictable, stable and simple tax system.
(http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/junebudget_tax_policy_making.htm).
The publication of these documents together is consistent with the principles set out in that document; it provides businesses, tax professionals and other interested parties with comprehensive information of the Government’s proposed reforms to these elements of the tax system.
Further detail on these documents is provided below. Copies of these documents are available on the tax policy discussion page of the HM Treasury website and the current consultations page of the HMRC website and have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
PAYE reform
The Government today are publishing a consultation on improving the operation of “Pay As You Earn” (PAYE), which seeks views on the collection of real time information to simplify taxation and reduce burdens on business. It also invites views on an option for longer-term reform to improve accuracy and further reduce administrative burdens, or alternative proposals to the same end. The Government seek interested parties’ views on these proposals. This document is available on the HMRC website.
Furnished holiday lettings
The Government today are publishing a consultation document on a proposal to ensure the tax rules for furnished holiday lettings meet EU legal requirements in a fiscally responsible way, by changing the eligibility thresholds and restricting the use of loss relief. The Government seek interested parties’ views on the proposal set out in the document. This document is available on the HM Treasury website.
Pensions tax relief
The Government announced in the June Budget that they are considering the issue of pensions tax relief. The Government today are publishing a discussion paper setting out the range of policy issues that would need to be decided in any new regime. The Government seek interested parties’ views on these issues. This document is available on the HM Treasury website.
Associated company rules
The Government today are publishing a summary of responses to the recent consultation on simplifying the associated company rules as they apply to the small profits rate of corporation tax. As announced in the June Budget, the Government will introduce the proposed legislation in Finance Bill 2011 and it will take effect from 1 April 2011. This document is available on the HM Treasury website.
Taxation of foreign branches
The Government today are publishing a discussion document on the scope of an exemption for foreign branch profits, aimed at delivering a more territorial approach to corporation tax to enhance the UK’s competitiveness. The Government seek interested parties’ views on the likely impacts of the proposals set out in the document and on implementation of these proposals. This document is available on the HM Treasury website.
Controlled Foreign Companies interim improvements
The Government today are publishing a short note setting out the aim and scope of CFC interim improvements together with the framework for consultation over the summer. The Government seek interested parties’ views on the nature of these improvements, including possible options to achieve the aims set out here and potential other worthwhile improvements that should be considered. This document is available on the HM Treasury website.
Modernisation of Investment Trust Company rules
The Government today are publishing a consultation document which sets out the Government’s proposals for modernising tax rules for investment trust companies, together with consequential amendments to the Companies Act by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills. The Government seek interested parties’ views on the proposals for change. This document is available on the HMRC website.
Inheritance tax avoidance schemes
The Government today are publishing a consultation on legislation designed to bring inheritance tax, as it applies to the transfer of property into trust, into the disclosure regime with the objective of addressing the problem of identifying such schemes and users at an early stage. The Government seek interested parties’ views on the detail of implementation. This document is available on the HMRC website.
National Minimum Wage: travel and subsistence schemes
The Government today are publishing a summary of responses to the recent consultation on travel and subsistence schemes implemented for some temporary workers paid at or near the national minimum wage (NMW). The Government have carefully considered the responses and have concluded that, on balance, action should be taken. They will amend the NMW regulations to take effect from 1 January 2011. This document is available on the HM Treasury website.
Office of Tax Simplification
David Gauke Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the structure and approach of the Office of Tax Simplification.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on the establishment of the Office of Tax Simplification, further to the written ministerial statement that I laid before the House this morning.
The need for simplification in the UK tax system is clear. The quality of our tax law is a major determinant of our economic competitiveness. A complex tax system creates uncertainty and instability, which sends the wrong signal to international businesses looking to invest in the UK and so damages our economic growth. A complex tax system also means that businesses end up spending more time dealing with their tax affairs and less time on their core business. That can be particularly burdensome for smaller businesses.
We set out our proposed approach for reforming the tax policy-making process in a discussion document that was published alongside the Budget last month, but as well as reforming the way in which we develop new tax law, there is also significant work to be done to correct the mistakes of the past by reducing the complexity in the British tax system. That is where the Office of Tax Simplification comes into play.
In his Budget statement of 22 June, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed our plans to establish the Office of Tax Simplification. Today, we have done so. The OTS will advise Treasury Ministers on delivering a simpler tax system, drawing together expertise from throughout the tax and legal professions as well as from business and other interested parties, to provide advice on options for addressing existing complexity in the tax system. Its objective will be to reduce the burden of compliance for both businesses and individuals. The OTS will do that by advising the Government on where, in its expert view, the tax system is too complex and could be simplified, and by conducting inquiries into complex areas of the tax system, gathering evidence and suggesting options for reform.
The office will publish a report on each of its inquiries, detailing the evidence that it has collected, the views of interested parties, its analysis of potential reform options and proposals for simplifications. Either the Chancellor or I will discuss the findings of each report with members of the OTS board. The first such inquiry will be a review of all reliefs in the tax system. The OTS will review the full list of reliefs and identify those that should be repealed or simplified to create a simpler tax system. The second review will focus on simplifying the tax system for small businesses and the specific question of finding a simpler alternative to IR35.
The OTS will be led by an externally appointed and unpaid chairman and tax director, who will be supported in undertaking their duties by a secretariat of civil servants and private sector secondees. The chairman and the tax director will have complete control over forming the OTS’s judgments and will be accountable to Parliament for their advice. Michael Jack will be the interim chairman, and John Whiting has agreed to be the interim tax director. Together they will lead the establishment of the OTS and the reviews that it conducts in its first year. Over the summer, John Whiting will lead the appointment of the permanent secretariat, so that the first reviews can begin by early September. He will also establish committees over the summer to steer the OTS’s work and ensure close consultation with all interested parties. The committees will include experts from the tax and legal professions, the business community and other interested parties.
Making the right reforms to the tax system will help to pave the way for bringing more international business to the UK, which will give our economy the boost that it so urgently needs in the years ahead. We commend the creation of this body.
Mr Byrne
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his statement. He will hear this afternoon that there is wide-ranging interest in the questions that he has raised, which is why it was all the more unacceptable that the statement was delivered at a press conference before it was made to Members. That, I am afraid, is becoming a pattern of behaviour. First, £6 billion of spending cuts were announced in the Treasury courtyard rather than in the Palace of Westminster. Then the approach to the spending review was announced in a press conference, not in this Chamber. Then reforms to the institutional arrangements for bank regulation were briefed to newspapers before the House was told. Then plans for a bank levy were outlined in a speech in the City, not from the Treasury Bench. If we wanted a timely reminder of the importance of the first debate to be held on business nominated by the Backbench Business Committee—on information relating to statements—the hon. Gentleman has just given us one.
Let me turn to the substance of the hon. Gentleman’s announcement. From all parts of the House this afternoon he will hear an endorsement of the principles of a simpler tax system that allows people to focus on their business affairs and profitability. He will see, too, an endorsement of the use of outside experts; that is nothing novel. But will he confirm the answers to a couple of questions about the office’s scope? If he is all for simplification, will the Office of Tax Simplification be advising him on his proposals to complicate the tax system by introducing a marriage tax allowance, all for the sake of sending an ineffective £3-a-week signal about his party’s views on what a family should look like? Will the office be advising the Chancellor either to advance or to drop those plans, and if so, on what timetable?
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Office of Tax Simplification will be advising him on dropping the measures announced in the Budget to increase the number of people facing marginal deduction rates of more than 90%? And if he is all for simplicity, why is the Treasury briefing that it wants a more complicated stamp duty system in connection with energy conservation in housing?
Secondly, there are a series of questions to be asked about the nature of the new beast that the hon. Gentleman has told us about this afternoon. We have heard a lot of talk in recent weeks about the Chancellor’s push for a bonfire of the quangos. Can the Minister tell us how much the new office will cost? Can he promise us that this is the last quango that the Treasury will announce this year? Can he tell the House how Mr Jack was appointed, and whether his appointment is fully in line with Nolan principles? What reassurances can the hon. Gentleman give the House this afternoon that, unlike the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Chancellor’s last independent creation, this office will not release its reports to help the Prime Minister get through a sticky Prime Minister’s Question Time?
Simplification is a good thing, and I am sure that the whole House will welcome the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals. But I am afraid that today’s announcement sounds rather more like an attempt to grab headlines than like real evidence of a push to improve legislation—legislation that is the responsibility of this House.
Mr Gauke
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman requested an urgent question because he had prepared a speech and had forgotten that this development was announced in the Budget on 22 June. The creation of this organisation was not only in the Conservative party manifesto and the coalition agreement; it was also announced to the House on 22 June by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Today we have announced the appointment of two distinguished individuals to perform the task that we have already set out. The misplaced outrage from the right hon. Gentleman is extraordinary, particularly given the record of the previous Government in this regard.
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman recognises, at last, the need for a simpler tax system and for outside experts to be involved in the tax system. We think that an important point; we have to make use of the expertise in the tax and legal professions, and the OTS is but one example of how we will do that, along with the creation of a business forum and a tax professional forum. All that will add to the sense of co-operation that exists in our tax system and the sense that the system can become an asset, not a liability—as, sadly, it had become under our predecessors.
The purpose of the OTS is to look at the stock of tax law—the thousands of pages of tax law in this country, which has the longest tax code in the world. It is an attempt to examine the existing tax code to make recommendations for simplification. All decisions will be made by Ministers accountable to the House. Parliament will continue to make tax law, but clearly the use of independent experts and publication of their recommendations and analyses will be a useful addition to our tax system.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the appointment process. These are interim appointments; we believed that it was important to establish the OTS quickly. The appointments will be there for 12 months, at which point we will go through the usual process of appointment for permanent appointees. In that 12-month period Mr Whiting and Mr Jack will add a great deal to our tax system, will establish the OTS—[Interruption.] In spite of that attack on the appointees, John Whiting, for example, has advised Opposition parties, including the Labour party in the past few weeks. These are well-established individuals. Michael Jack was a distinguished Minister in this area, who established the tax law rewrite project, and we think that that is useful experience.
As for the cost, I know that the view of the Labour party in government is that quangos must always cost a great deal of money—but Mr Jack and Mr Whiting are not being paid for this. The cost of the secretariat will be paid out of existing Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs budgets. This is good value for money, it will be a good contribution to our tax system, and we are very proud to announce it.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
I am not so sure about that, Mr Speaker.
I warmly welcome anything that simplifies the tax system; I think we all do. The Chancellor described the new office as a
“a permanent force for a simpler tax system”,
but he has appointed it initially for only one Parliament. Can the Minister explain why? What is to be the annual budget of the office’s permanent staff, and will permanent appointments be subject to scrutiny by the Treasury Committee?
Mr Gauke
On the appointment process, we will see how we go. We are keen that the OTS should be accountable to Parliament, and I dare say that it will give evidence to my hon. Friend’s Committee. As for the cost, as I said a moment ago, the intention is that the costs will be borne from the existing budgets of HMRC and the Treasury. There will be secondees from the private sector, and we expect them to fund that at their own cost. As regards longevity, the initial appointments are for 12 months. We have set up the OTS for a Parliament, but I hope that it will be a permanent feature of our tax system.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
One of the pieces of tax complexity that Treasury officials will be counselling this body to get rid of swiftly is perhaps one of the most important that has recently been introduced—the patent box, which enables intellectual property developed in this country to be domiciled in this country for tax purposes, not domiciled overseas at a great loss to the British taxpayer. Will the Minister ensure that the new body is not bamboozled by Treasury officials who have opposed that measure for far too long, and will continue to try to get rid of it?
Mr Gauke
As I mentioned earlier, the intention of the OTS is to look at the existing stock of tax law, not to examine new proposals for tax law. On the patent box, as we announced in the Budget, the intention is to carry out a consultation on intellectual property and on how the patent box works, how research and development tax credits work, and how the controlled foreign company rules apply in that context. We will be carrying out that consultation in the autumn.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
May I welcome the announcements about the OTS, particularly the appointment of John Whiting—a move that will be very popular in the industry? Does the Minister agree that by simplifying the tax code, the Government are reducing the opportunities for tax avoidance?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The greater the complexity, the greater the opportunities for avoiding tax, and a simpler tax system closes down some of those opportunities. The relationship between avoidance and complexity is itself complex, because avoidance leads to more complexity. As a Government, we take tackling tax avoidance very seriously.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The old tax law rewrite project only managed, in more than a decade, to bring about the Capital Allowances Act 2001, four income tax measures, the Corporation Tax Act 2009, the Corporation Tax Act 2010 and the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010. As the Minister expects a report on each of this new body’s inquiries, with an analysis of its reform options and recommendations, all of which might take some time, may I ask him, if he does nothing else, to urge the new Office of Tax Simplification to work rather more swiftly than the old tax law rewrite project was able to?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman rightly makes the point that tax law is a complicated matter, and such matters are not addressed easily and simply, but we believe that we have appointed the right individuals, and that there is engagement by the tax professions. We believe that the tax law rewrite project had many commendable features, but it was very restricted. It focused merely on wording, and we want an independent body to consider policy recommendations to see how we can improve our tax system.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that this is a very long overdue initiative, with two aspects that we would never have heard about from the Opposition—a focus on simplicity, and the idea that things can be done without the benefit of an overpaid quango?
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
To prove to the House the independence of the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Chancellor finally conceded that the appointment of its chair would be subject to the agreement of the Treasury Committee. If the so-called independent OTS is actually to be so, will the same arrangements be considered for the appointment of its chair?
Mr Gauke
We have not taken a view on that yet. We have to understand what the role of the OTS will be—to publish recommendations that will be, by necessity, in the public domain. People can debate those matters, which we think is a valuable purpose in itself. Whether the Treasury Committee needs to endorse every appointment made by the Government is a debate that we should have.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
Is the Minister aware that one tax expert has described the “Gauke doctrine” as one of the most important changes in improving the competitiveness of our tax system—so long as it is delivered properly? Will he assure me that the Government will work to ensure that what has been put down on paper in the Budget will be delivered properly over this Parliament?
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to whichever tax expert identified the Gauke doctrine: my hon. Friend is right about so many things, because this is a question of following things through. We have set out some very good intentions and made a great deal of progress in our first few weeks, in demonstrating how the UK tax system can be an asset, but it is our responsibility as a Government to ensure that we follow through and build on what I believe have been some early successes.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman referred to the new body as being accountable to the House. If he has considered that idea closely, can he tell us precisely how it will be achieved?
Mr Gauke
We certainly anticipate that the Treasury Committee will want to take evidence from the tax director and the chairman, and that documents and recommendations produced by the OTS will be available to Members. I dare say that those recommendations will inform our debates on Finance Bills and, if it is possible, raise the quality of debate.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
By how much did the tax code lengthen under the previous Government? I understand that its length is now a record in the western world.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Any reduction in the burden on small businesses, or indeed any businesses, of administration costs in paying tax is to be welcomed. However, can the Minister say whether, as a result of simplification of the tax system, he expects to raise more tax or less?
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming these measures. The intention is that the OTS will be neither a tax-raising nor a tax-cutting body but a tax simplification body. It will make recommendations, and our approach, wherever possible, is to broaden the base and lower the rate. If, for example, there are recommendations that reliefs should be withdrawn, we anticipate that the money saved could be recycled into tax cuts elsewhere. The OTS should not be seen as anything other than revenue-neutral.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I thank the Exchequer Secretary for this initiative on behalf of businesses small and large in Watford and elsewhere—but not on behalf of the tax accountants, who have not contacted me to say how happy they are. Does he agree that measures such as this, when the public and small businesses find things simpler, are very much to the advantage both of them, and of the Exchequer purse?
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
For how long will we have to watch this space to see an end to the quicksand of complexity that is IR35? Will the experts appointed to assist the OTS include people who understand the difficulties caused for families and firms who work and live on a cross-border basis in Northern Ireland? Those people are caught in an utter matrix of tax complications.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that a more simplified tax system will encourage UK manufacturers to retain jobs here rather than export them to other countries? Does he also agree that the measure will make the UK look more favourable as somewhere for global companies to locate their business?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, we want to ensure that our tax system is an asset to the UK, so that we can go out there and sell the UK as a place to do business. We want one advantage of doing business in the UK to be a certain, stable, predictable and simple tax system.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
When simplification is in conflict with fairness, which will prevail?
Mr Gauke
All policy decisions will be for the House and Ministers. The hon. Lady makes the fair point that one cannot take politics entirely out of the tax system, but there are times when it is simply a question of complexity versus simplicity. There is scope for improvement, which is what I hope the OTS will be able to deliver.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Will the Minister make a special effort to simplify tax legislation so that it is understandable for ordinary people? As a former tax lawyer—a poacher turned gamekeeper—I know that too often, the best advice is the preserve of the richest. That is not fair.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend, too, makes a good point. On the day of the Budget we published our document “Tax policy making: a new approach”, which set out a more consultative and deliberative approach to tax law, ensuring that draft legislation is properly examined. We think that that is to the advantage of all people; greater clarity in tax law is clearly helpful.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that the two appointees will not get any expenses or salary? Will he refer the appointments to the Committee on Standards in Public Life?
Mr Gauke
The appointees will not be paid. If they incur proper expenses, they will be reimbursed, as is only reasonable—[Interruption.] I would have thought all Members of the House would appreciate that. Ultimately, the appointments will be in accordance with the relevant provisions, but we believed it important to set the OTS up quickly. We have done that, and with two excellent individuals.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
If those two excellent individuals are to work for an initial period of 12 months, will that be enough time for them to read the 11,000 pages of tax code applied by the previous Government?
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Many hon. Members have made points about fairness. Will the Minister ensure that the OTS will not simply dance to the tune of the wealthiest in society, and their accountants, in putting issues on the agenda? I refer to the decision in the Budget to reduce the backdating of new claims and changes of circumstance for tax credits from three months to one month, at a cost of £1 billion to ordinary people. Is it not the case that this Government are more interested in helping the wealthiest and putting obstacles in the way of the least well-paid?
Mr Gauke
I really do not accept the point that having a simpler tax system, which is understandable by everyone and not just those who can afford expensive advice, is in any way a regressive step. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said, it will benefit everybody and we are pleased to be able to do it.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that along with the cancellation of Labour’s jobs tax and the reduction in corporation tax that his team has proposed, this will also help to re-open Britain for business?
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is ironic that the new Government’s anti-quango approach seems to be translating into setting up more quangos. Apart from grabbing headlines, why cannot the functions of this new office be carried out within the Treasury and, therefore, be directly accountable to Parliament?
Mr Gauke
Some months ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a speech identifying those areas in which quangos would be an advantage, and one of those was the ability to provide independent advice in a technical area. This is one of those areas, and we believe that engaging with outside bodies and making use of outside expert advice will actually benefit the creation of good tax law and improve our tax system. This policy is not about grabbing headlines, but improving our tax system because that is what we want to do. We will leave the headline grabbing and the sudden announcements to our predecessors.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
I welcome the statement by my hon. Friend. Does he agree that it is striking that the independent experts who will lend their expertise to the OTS are doing so without being paid, and does that not contrast starkly with the millions spent on ineffective quangos by Labour?
Mr Gauke
We are very grateful to Mr Whiting and Mr Jack for giving up their time for free in an attempt to improve our tax system and provide a public service. They deserve thanks from both sides of the House, and it is a pity that there has been a little sniping from one or two Opposition Members.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Is the Minister aware that in Hastings we have some very successful business groups? They often complain to me about the over-regulation and complexity of the system. If we are to achieve the necessary growth, we need to allow them to expand their businesses. Can he assure me that this office will focus especially on those small and medium enterprises that will provide the growth that this country needs?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Of the two reports that the office will produce initially, one will focus on taxation for small businesses and the problems with IR35. We believe that this organisation will be able to address that difficult issue, which frankly has not been dealt with satisfactorily in recent years.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I welcome the response to the urgent question today. As a former finance director, I will join many others in celebrating this simplification agenda, so that instead of spending time thinking about tax they can think about business growth. In particular, can my hon. Friend assure me that the office will also cover the subject of VAT which is as complex as corporation tax and others?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The spat at the beginning of the urgent question about whether the written statement was first leaked to the press raised the blood pressure of the shadow Minister. Would the Minister encourage all Back Benchers—indeed, all Ministers—to come along to the first Back-Bench business debate scheduled for later this evening on the very topic of information on statements for Back Benchers?
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that the Minister will relate his answer to attempts to simplify the tax system.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I welcome today’s initiative. Will the Office of Tax Simplification have a remit specifically to look at tax bands, particularly to make the UK more competitive? The corporation tax band between the small rate, the marginal rate and the large rate contains a slight anomaly.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I am grateful to the Exchequer Secretary for his statement. Will the OTS receive representations from business organisations and individuals who can make a contribution to simplifying the tax structure?
Mr Gauke
We will certainly encourage the OTS to take representations. Mr Whiting and Mr Jack are keen to do so and will be establishing consultative committees to provide organisations and businesses with an opportunity to have their say and more generally to engage with businesses. We believe that, in the tax area in particular, it is important that we engage with business. That has been a characteristic of this Government, and we hope to continue to do that.
Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)
I welcome the Exchequer Secretary’s statement. Does he agree that tax simplification will lead to greater business confidence in small and medium-sized businesses, such as those in my constituency of Dudley South, which will lead to the confidence to make greater plans to create more jobs?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is at the heart of what this is about. A strong tax system can encourage strong growth in the private sector, which can encourage the growth we need to tackle our deficit, and I hope that the OTS will make a useful contribution to that.
Finance Bill
David Gauke Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have enjoyed a lively and wide-ranging debate during the Bill’s progress. I would therefore like to start by thanking all Members who have taken part in the four days of debate on what is a short but significant Bill—despite its brevity, it makes fundamental changes to Britain for the better.
The Bill follows the emergency Budget and puts in place many of the measures that are necessary to strengthen the economy and ensure fiscal discipline. It was a crucial Budget, and this is a crucial Bill because this is the time when we finally get to grips with our deficit. The Bill re-establishes the credibility of the country to the rest of the world. It shows that where tough choices are needed, the Government have the courage to make them, and it provides for a fair and productive society.
The Budget was tough, but it was also fair. It set out a decisive and credible plan to deal with this country’s record deficit and to tackle the other problems that were left behind: a structural deficit £12 billion larger than we had been told; a deficit that was the largest in the G20 and second only to Ireland in the European Union; one in every four pounds of public spending coming from borrowing; an uncompetitive tax environment; and endless complexity and unfairness throughout the tax system. Our plan will pave the way for sustainable private sector-led growth, keep interest rates lower for longer and protect jobs. It is the right approach for the country.
Last week the OECD said in its report on the UK:
“The comprehensive budget announced by the government on 22 June was courageous and appropriate. It was an essential starting point. It signals the commitment to provide the necessary degree of fiscal consolidation over the coming years to bring public finances to a sustainable path, while still supporting the recovery.”
Despite containing only nine substantive clauses, the Bill represents a clear change from the past and a new direction of travel, and it meets the three principles of responsibility, freedom and fairness set out by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on Second Reading.
First, the Bill shows that we are taking responsibility for the problems we inherited, and it follows a Budget more honest, more transparent and more pragmatic than those before it. We have been honest about the scale of the challenge, and we have been honest about the actions needed to take it on. If we are to bring down the deficit without cutting vital public services, raising VAT is unavoidable. We recognise that Members have concerns about that, but for the first time we have published analysis of the distributional impacts of Budget measures. It shows that fairness underpins the tough choices the Government have taken to tackle the deficit.
Andrew George
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He refers to the Budget as being both honest and disciplined. On VAT and the theme of fairness, which he says underpins the Budget, will he ensure that there is an opportunity transparently to review the VAT measurer in clause 3? He has rejected the concept of a sunset clause, but will this be evaluated, as proposed in the Government’s published taxation policy? If it is going to be evaluated, at what stage should it be evaluated and when will the House have an opportunity to analyse it and debate the issue?
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. As he knows, with this Budget we have set out more distributional analysis than any previous Government have ever done before. On the VAT increase, I say to him that all tax matters are kept under review. He has a fine reputation for finding opportunities to raise particular points in Parliament, and I am sure that he will do so on this matter. I am sure that there will be opportunities for him, and for other hon. and right hon. Members, to raise these matters in future. For the moment we have put in place an increase in the VAT rate. We cannot make any promises to change it, and it would be dangerous for us to do so, given some of the points that we debated in Committee; a promise of a VAT cut in future is likely to result in a deferral of expenditure. However, this is an ongoing debate and I am sure that he will contribute to it fully, just as he has contributed to this debate fully over the past few days.
We believe that this Budget has been demonstrated to be a progressive Budget that deals with the deficit fairly; all sections of society contribute, but the richest pay more than the poorest. I also have to make the point to the House and to my hon. Friend that, of course, we should not look at the VAT increase in isolation, because it is part of a wider package that ensures that the most vulnerable in society are protected. It is also worth making the point that during these days in which we have debated this matter we have learned that support for the VAT increase was more widely spread than we ever realised. With exquisite timing, we learned from Lord Mandelson that the previous Chancellor wanted to raise VAT.
Mr Byrne
Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of VAT, can he clear up one problem that I came across in the Red Book? The scorecard for the Budget says that about £8 billion will be raised in taxes by 2014-15, yet the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in the back of the Red Book says that only £3 billion in tax will actually come through the door. Why is there a £5 billion difference?
Mr Byrne
The matter can be cleared up very quickly. The scorecard on page 40, with which the hon. Gentleman will be enormously familiar, states that the “total tax policy decisions” will result in £8.230 billion being received in 2014-15, whereas table C12 on page 101, which shows the OBR forecast, says that only £3.1 billion in receipts will actually come in. Why is there a difference between what is on the scorecard, which is a little more than £8 billion, and what is in the OBR forecast for the money that will actually be raised, which is £3 billion?
Mr Gauke
The right hon. Gentleman appears to be raising a perfectly fair point. The OBR was heavily involved in calculating the numbers for the scorecard, so I suspect that there is a perfectly innocent explanation and I will endeavour to ensure that he receives it before this debate reaches its conclusion.
Mr Byrne
Is not the answer very straightforward? Is not the answer that the Budget depresses growth so much that tax receipts will actually be down, so even though the scorecard sets out a series of measures that should, in theory, raise the amount that it sets out, the OBR, understandably, knowing that growth is depressed, has set out that far less money will actually come through?
Mr Gauke
If that is the point that the right hon. Gentleman is getting at, I must point out what the OBR made very clear in the Red Book. That point is that it is misleading to make a straight comparison between the growth figures that were projected on the basis of market expectations of interest rates, which were lower as a consequence of the anticipated fiscal tightening that this Government promised to deliver and that we have delivered, and the forecasts that do not take that into account. That is a point that we have gone over a number of times. The OBR said that such comparisons were potentially misleading, so if that idea is what is driving the right hon. Gentleman’s queries, I must point out to him that the OBR would not accept that.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
Is not one explanation the idea that the OBR came forward with growth forecasts that were reasonable and at least had a hope of being accurate rather than the hopelessly over-optimistic growth forecasts put in place by the previous Government?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend might well have the answer. One point that we learned from Lord Mandelson in the course of his much-loved memoirs is that the then Chancellor, who is now shadow Chancellor, apparently accused the then Prime Minister of having a “ludicrously over-optimistic” view of what the growth forecasts would be and about
“Britain’s ability to support such a large and expanding deficit.”
That might well be the explanation.
Mr Byrne
I rise with the ambition of being helpful to the Minister as he will not want knowingly or unknowingly to mislead the House. He will know that the OBR forecast on page 101 is a forecast of what tax receipts will come in on the basis of the Budget set out in the Red Book. These things are entirely consistent with each other and the forecast has nothing to do with previous Budgets or previous OBR estimates. Will he confirm that for the House?
Mr Gauke
The fact is that the big risk to growth for this country would have been if we had done nothing about the deficit. If we had tried to ignore it, we would have found ourselves having our credit rating downgraded, as has happened to Greece, Portugal, Spain and now the Republic of Ireland, and we would have faced a contagion of sovereign debt. We have taken the necessary actions to ensure that growth is secure and the fact is that the OBR projections have far greater credibility than the previous Government’s—we have learned about how political they were in making their growth forecasts. Our growth forecasts have credibility. Our public finances have a credibility that they did not before. We can be proud of that.
As we have heard, the previous Treasury team believed that an increase in VAT was necessary and that was only blocked by the previous Prime Minister. One can hope that the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), has seen the error of his ways. I noticed that he did not feature in the Division Lobby opposing the VAT increase—perhaps we have persuaded him, after all, that his views on VAT were unwise. We have succeeded where the shadow Chancellor failed.
We have heard legitimate concerns about how the most vulnerable in society will be protected, but we have sought to provide such protection in the Budget. For example, we have committed to the uprating of the basic state pension through a triple guarantee of earnings prices or 2.5%, whichever is highest, from April 2011. We have taken steps to increase the child tax credit.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. On this point about uprating pensions, will he take this opportunity to admit that the shift from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index as the definition for which all benefits and now all pensions will be indexed is scored as plus £6 billion in the Red Book, which means that he is taking that amount of money from some of the most vulnerable and poorest people in the country?
Mr Gauke
We have taken measures to secure the public finances for the longer term, but we have done so by protecting the poorest in society. We have provided a triple guarantee for pensioners and we have finally restored the earnings link that our predecessors did not succeed in restoring in 13 years. In addition, we have taken steps to increase the child tax credit by £150 next year and by £60 in the following year. As a result, levels of child poverty after the Budget will remain unaffected, taking into account all the measures of the next couple of years.
Andrew George
I hate to drag the Minister back to VAT, but he moved on from it very swiftly after the shadow Chief Secretary’s question about the alleged black hole in the finances. Given that there is no, or very little, likelihood of a sunset clause in the Bill or a further evaluation of VAT within this Parliament, will the Minister confirm that each of the zero ratings and exemptions from VAT, as well as the reduced levels of VAT that are available, will be retained and protected? That is very important in order for him to advance his point about the protection for lower-paid people.
Mr Gauke
That is our intention. The Chancellor has made it clear that we have no intention of reconsidering the zero ratings for food or children’s clothes. There are occasional border disputes regarding goods that are zero-rated and those that are fully rated, but on the fundamental question of zero-rating we have made it absolutely clear that we do not intend to revisit those areas. We are also increasing the personal allowance on income tax.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
May I drag the Minister back to his point about the VAT rise being part of a package of measures and about the poorest being protected by the Budget when it is taken in the whole rather than just looking at the VAT rise? Will he remind the House what safeguards there are for pensioners or unemployed people who do not have children? What benefits will they gain that will pay for the extra VAT that they are going to pay?
Mr Gauke
Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the distributional charts, particularly those that examine these matters on the basis of the expenditure decile, which academics increasingly believe provides a better examination of those who are suffering from material deprivation. That approach demonstrates that the measures are progressive, when taken as a whole, and that the wealthier sectors of society are paying more. The distributional analyses show that the single tax measure that had a regressive effect was the dumping of the 10p rate of income tax that was announced in 2007, which hurt the bottom five deciles and benefited the top five. That does not seem fair, and I am glad that we were not part of the Government who did that.
Chris Leslie
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The distributional tables in section A of the Red Book that he mentions are quite interesting, but will he remind us why they extend for only two years? Does he plan to lay any more tables before the House, soon—I do not know whether we could get them before the end of Third Reading—so that we can talk about when the real cuts to benefits and to the poorest people will kick in?
Mr Gauke
The further forward the projections go, the less reliable the information and evidence on existing measures, not to mention the fact that, of course, there will be a number of Budgets between now and then and further policy announcements will be made during that period. Therefore, those projections are unlikely to be particularly accurate or helpful to the House.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Minister has been telling us about a number of measures that will mitigate the VAT rise, such as changes to the tax system and tax credits, but none of those things is in the Bill. He has not mentioned some of the other cuts not yet announced but promised that are not in the Budget either, not least the huge savings intended to be made in the welfare system. Would he care to give a more rounded picture and tell us what the impact on those who are at the very bottom and wholly dependent on benefits will be when those cuts kick in?
Mr Gauke
This Government have provided greater distributional analysis than any Government have done before. Clearly, in very difficult times, when it is necessary to raise substantial sums and to reduce the deficit very dramatically, we have managed to do so in a way that has spread the pain. It is not the Government’s desire from any great sense of pleasure to be taking tough measures, but that is unavoidable—we cannot ignore it or hide from it—and, yes, there will be pain, but there is no alternative.
Our long-term objective remains to increase the personal allowance to £10,000, as set out in the coalition agreement, and we have made progress in the Bill and the Budget. We are increasing the personal allowance on income tax and taking almost 1 million people—the lowest earning income tax payers—out of income tax altogether. That will also benefit 23 million people who work in Britain by up to £170 a year.
The second matter that the Bill stands for is freedom—freedom for the private sector to grow, unconstrained by uncompetitive tax rates. The Bill will take the first step towards that by cutting the corporation tax rate to 27%, and it will be cut every year until it reaches 24%—the lowest rate of any major western economy, one of the lowest rates in the G7 and the lowest rate that this country has ever known.
Hon. Members were concerned that cutting the main rate would mean that banks did not pay their fair share. Many sectors, including manufacturing, will benefit from the reduction in corporation tax, but we have made it clear that the reforms outlined in the Budget will ensure a greater contribution from the banking sector—one that far outweighs any benefit that they receive from lower corporation tax rates. The banking levy announced in the Budget is a surgical approach reflective of economic risk and intended to encourage banks to move to less risky funding profiles. Banks will pay at least £2 billion more in tax as a consequence of those proposals.
The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), who has contributed a great deal to the debates on the Bill, was particularly concerned that the banks will be let off for risky behaviour. That is not the case, but I hope he will accept that a targeted approach is the best way forward. Tax competitiveness is good for employers and society as a whole, and the bank levy allows us to be competitive, while ensuring appropriate tax treatment for those activities that pose the greatest risk.
Chris Leslie
I will certainly look closely at the bank levy consultation, but I was looking at the Hansard report of the costs to the Exchequer of the corporation tax giveaway to the banks. It is not just £400 million in the final year, 2014-15; there is also £100 million of lost revenue in 2011-12; £200 million in 2012-13; and £300 million in 2013-14. Cumulatively, over the period of the Budget, there are £1 billion in corporate tax giveaways to the banks. Surely, if there really is no alternative, the hon. Gentleman should think again about that cash-back arrangement.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman was a Member of the House in the early days of the previous Government, so he knows all about rolling up numbers. I could roll up the numbers for how much will be raised from the bank levy—I do not have the details in front of me, but we would get to about £8 billion—but I am not sure that that is a terribly helpful way of approaching things.
The corporation tax reduction is just one part of the wider package to build a private sector-led recovery. Instead of increasing the small profit rate by 1%, we will cut it to 20% in next year’s Bill, which will benefit some 850,000 companies from April 2011. We are increasing the threshold at which employers start to pay national insurance contributions and have announced a package of support for small businesses. The package will also include a reduction in the writing-down value of plant and machinery allowances to 18% and a reduction in the annual investment allowance to £25,000. That will still provide for allowances that are broadly in line with depreciation, while the annual investment allowance will still cover the annual qualifying expenditure of 95% of businesses. Furthermore, we are reducing the main rate of corporation tax this year and changing allowances in 2012. We are giving companies a timing benefit that will form part of the £13 billion extra that will be invested as a result of the changes.
The third and final area that we are addressing is fairness. Clause 2 increases the rate for capital gains tax for higher rate payers to 28%. That progressive change will substantially reduce the incentive for individuals to disguise their income as a return on capital. It will ensure that the appropriate rate of taxation is paid, which is fair in itself.
Avoidance is a significant issue for the Government and it has been a significant topic throughout the Bill’s passage. It was raised with reference to corporation tax and capital gains tax, and it is the target of clauses 8 and 9, which protect about £200 million of revenue a year. I assure the House that the Government are absolutely committed to tackling avoidance and evasion robustly.
Mr Gauke
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am keen to press on.
We have inherited plans to limit tax relief on pension savings for the wealthiest. Under the approach in the Finance Act 2010, individuals on the highest incomes who were able to make very large pension contributions could have continued to get pensions tax relief worth up to £51,000 a year. We have concerns about the complexity and fairness of the previous Government’s approach. Given the state of the public finances, we cannot ignore the £4 billion or more of revenue that the policy was set to raise, and as we are committed to protecting the public finances, the alternative needs to raise no less revenue than the existing plans. We are looking at an approach whereby the annual tax relief available will be restricted to less than half that under the previous Government’s plan, which will significantly curtail the ability of the super-rich to benefit from pensions tax relief.
We have touched on annuities. We want to enable people to make more flexible use of their pension savings. We intend to end the obligation to annuitise by the age of 75 from April 2011, and last week we launched a consultation on the details of the change. Before a new system is introduced in next year’s Finance Bill, this Bill puts in place interim measures that will delay such decisions until an individual is 77. That will prevent anyone turning 75 on or after Budget day from being disadvantaged by having to make a decision before the new rules are in place.
The Bill is at the heart of the Budget changes that are necessary for this country’s tax system. Unlike our predecessors, we do not believe that, in a pit of debt, we should still be digging. We do not believe that we can just borrow to pay for front-line services. In the words of the previous Chancellor:
“If we are not credible in what we do and say, people will assume there will be more borrowing or huge tax rises to come.”
Our predecessors failed that test but we are succeeding.
In the words of the shadow Business Secretary, we cannot wish the deficit problem away. The Bill will promote enterprise. It is progressive and responsible, and I commend it to the House.
Office of Tax Simplification
David Gauke Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The independent Office of Tax Simplification has been established today to provide advice to the Chancellor on delivering a simpler tax system. Michael Jack and John Whiting have been appointed as the interim chair and tax director to lead the office for the first year.
Finance Bill
David Gauke Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I am reluctant to extend compulsion in that regard. We should certainly encourage people to take out travel insurance and inform them of what might befall them should they not do so—they could be stranded abroad or find themselves without adequate medical or health cover, for example. I do not know whether hon. Members always remember to fill in their E111 forms when they travel to other countries in the European Union, but our constituents often do not. They can find themselves in significant jeopardy. In those circumstances, travel insurance is very useful.
Many people are employed in the insurance industry, and if there are disincentives against our constituents’ taking out decent, high-quality policies there will be an impact on the insurance sector and the financial services sector more widely. The financial services sector, including insurance, is one of the great industries of our country. It has been subject to a lot of criticism, and we can talk about that on another occasion, but it is important that we should not take steps that harm the products that we consume in this country and sell worldwide.
I conclude by reiterating to the Treasury the importance of assessing the impact of the insurance premium tax increase on our constituents and the Revenue. We do not know from the Red Book how the £455 million annual yield precisely breaks down between pensioners, young people and beyond. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary says that the impact on pensioners will be significant and I take his word for that. That issue is a great worry. These are serious matters and I hope that the Treasury and other hon. Members will hear some of the points shared across both sides of the Chamber today.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
We have had a wide-ranging debate on clause 4 and the amendments tabled to it; I am sure, Mr Evans, that you want to hear its conclusion. I was grateful to hear the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who highlighted the freedom given to Government Back Benchers in Committee debates. I hope that my remarks will persuade my hon. Friends not to make full use of that latitude. We shall see.
The amendments are concerned with the general impact of the rise in the standard rate of insurance premium tax, particularly in respect of its impact on personal health insurance and the motor industry. I will come to those issues in detail in due course. Before I do so, I propose to set before the Committee the reasons behind the course that we have chosen.
Reducing the deficit and ensuring economic recovery are the most urgent issues facing the UK and they are the Government’s top priority. In the words of the shadow Business Secretary, it is no good wishing the deficit away; it is only by acting quickly to tackle the deficit and restore confidence in the public finances that we will achieve economic growth. That has meant that we have had to take many tough decisions to ensure that everybody makes a fair contribution. Part of that contribution will come from increases to the standard and higher rates of IPT.
Clause 4 legislates for that by increasing the standard rate of IPT from 5% to 6% and the higher rate of IPT from 17.5% to 20%, both with effect from 4 January 2011. IPT is, of course, a tax on insurers, not on their customers; 80% of all the insurance sold in the UK is exempt from IPT. All long-term insurance, such as life insurance and pensions, is exempt from IPT. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) mentioned Conservative party policy on long-term insurance. If he is a little patient, I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health will say more on the subject. I just underline the point that IPT is not levied on long-term insurance.
Mr Gauke
What I can say is that given how IPT is currently structured and where it is levied, it does not apply to long-term insurance; the conclusion to be drawn about something that falls within the definition of long-term insurance is fairly logical.
However, in respect of the types of insurance that are affected, insurers have the right to respond to the tax as they see fit. They are not obliged to pass on IPT through higher premiums. [Interruption.] We recognise that many insurers will pass it on to their customers through higher premiums, but I will not be dragged into the detail of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie).
The question was asked whether further regulation should be imposed on insurers, making them display prominently how much is being paid in IPT. Unlike VAT, IPT is a tax on insurance, so there is no obligation to pass it on or to recover it for businesses. We do not think that that would be appropriate. Insurers are, of course, perfectly free to display the IPT rate on documentation, and many do so. Requiring them to do so, however, would be burdensome and unnecessary.
Mr Gauke
I am not denying that we expect the increase to be passed on predominantly to consumers; we expect that the bulk of it will be. The analysis of VAT, another indirect tax, shows that two thirds tends to be passed on straight away and that much of the rest is passed on over the following 12 months. However, it is not always possible to predict and it partly depends on the level of competition.
Gordon Banks
I just want to make a simple point. The Minister is saying that he expects consumers to pay twice—once through increased premiums and once through increased IPT. Does he find that acceptable?
Mr Gauke
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the increase in insurance premium tax, which is payable by insurers, is likely to be passed on to consumers. We are not denying that; in simple terms, we need the money.
Even if the increases to the standard and higher rates of IPT are passed on in full, the impacts will be very modest, costing households less than 20p a week on average and businesses an average of less than 0.01% of annual turnover, even for smaller businesses.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has renewed his car insurance or household policy recently, but he will find that most insurance policies make it clear exactly how much tax is paid, so I do not think it is the case that they will withhold the increase and not pass it on to the consumer.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlining an earlier point that I made—that it is not necessary to introduce regulation in this area. As I say, we anticipate that it will be passed on, but it is not mandatory. I am not denying that position.
Despite these modest impacts, the IPT rate increases will contribute more than £450 million a year to reducing the deficit. As I said, such decisions have been forced on us by the economic circumstances that the UK finds itself in, and they have not been taken lightly. We are confident, however, that this modest rise in IPT, which leaves the main rate of the tax significantly lower than that of many of our European competitors, is a means of raising much-needed revenue that will not have a significant impact on households, businesses or the insurance industry.
Mr Byrne
The Minister is making an argument about choices that are made in order to increase revenue, but I think the Committee is struggling to understand the reason for the increase in the standard rate of IPT. Other choices were available. Why have increases in cider duty been withdrawn, for example, while new taxes are being introduced on insurance?
Mr Gauke
The central point is that the country is in a very difficult position as regards the public finances. I hope that the shadow Chief Secretary is grateful for the fact that I have got this far through a speech without once referring to his letter. With another intervention, I may be tempted to do so. We have made a series of judgments. If he thinks that cider duty is the way to reduce the deficit, I suggest that he is somewhat mistaken.
Amendment 18 would exempt personal health insurance from the increase in the standard rate of IPT, and amendment 19 would do the same in relation to motor insurance. In effect, that would mean creating a new reduced rate of IPT that applied only to private medical insurance and motor insurance. Of course, the Government recognise the value of these types of insurance and, indeed, of insurance more generally.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that we do not disapprove of people taking out private medical insurance—that is not something we wish to prohibit, either in law or by imposing enormous costs on it. In health policy, our focus is of course on improving the national health service, and we have this week set out important proposals on improving the quality of the health service and reducing expenditure on bureaucracy. We are also, as a Government, protecting the NHS from spending cuts, which is not, as I understand it, a policy endorsed by Labour. The purpose behind this tax increase is clearly to raise more revenue—it is not an attempt to try to dissuade people from taking out private health insurance.
Thomas Docherty
The Minister claims that the Government are protecting the NHS. Is he aware that all the health boards in Scotland have written to their employees to inform them that following the cuts that his Government are making, the NHS in Scotland will have significant job losses?
Mr Gauke
Of course health care in Scotland is a devolved matter, and you will not want me to digress on that, Mr Hoyle, but the fact is that health care spending will go up in real terms under this Government. That is not, as I understand it, a policy that is supported by the official Opposition.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend framed his policy in rather negative terms by saying that the Government did not disapprove of health insurance and did not want to prohibit or deter it. Can he be a bit more positive and say that it is their policy to try to encourage people to take responsibility for their own insurance, on similar lines to the Secretary of State for Transport saying that he wishes people to take responsibility for paying their own bus fares, despite their having bus passes, if they can afford so to do?
Mr Gauke
As a Government—I am sure that this is a principle that my hon. Friend would support—we believe in giving people choice, and that is what we will do. We have set out our policies in that context, and I am merely underlining this Government’s commitment to the national health service.
The combined effect of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would be to slow down fiscal consolidation. Through the Budget and this particular measure, the Government are trying to get our deficit under control, and slowing it down would not be an appropriate step.
Chris Leslie
Specifically in terms of the contribution to fiscal consolidation, how much of the yield from the increase in IPT will come from the motorist via car insurance?
Mr Gauke
If I may, I will provide a little more information breaking down the numbers in a moment or so, and we shall see whether that is specific enough for the hon. Gentleman.
Exempting motor insurance from the IPT rise would reduce revenue by £160 million a year, and exempting medical insurance would reduce it by a further £40 million. Taken together, those figures total £200 million—nearly £1 billion over the lifetime of the Parliament. That would leave us with quite a shortfall, and a couple of options. First, we could raise £1 billion from elsewhere. We have to be open about the fact that the purpose of the IPT rise is to raise revenue, and if we were to look to raise the outstanding £1 billion through IPT, that would mean increasing very considerably the rate of tax on the remaining classes of insurance. For reasons that I will set out, we do not think that that is the right way to go. The second option is to leave ourselves with £1 billion outstanding, which would leave us further away from plugging the deficit, with all the risks that that entails. We are certain that that is not the right way to go.
It has always been a principle of IPT that the tax applies to a relatively broad base of general insurance, with few exceptions. That broad base allows us to keep the standard rate of the tax low by international standards. Even at the new rate of 6%, the UK’s standard rate of IPT is far lower than in, say, Germany, where it is 18% for property and 19% for motor insurance, or France, where it is 9% for property and 18% for motor insurance. Narrowing the base of the tax through specific exemptions of the type that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch suggests would put that low rate at risk.
To respond to the perfectly fair question of the shadow Chief Secretary, the fact that we have announced the increase should not be taken as a signal that we intend to harmonise tax levels with those elsewhere. To quote what the shadow Chancellor used to say, we always keep taxes under review and it would be daft to rule things out, but this increase should not be taken as a signal of an ongoing programme of further increases.
We do not take any pleasure in introducing this tax rise, even though the reasons for it are clear. However, by keeping a broad base of tax within general insurance, we are able to raise revenue so as to cut the deficit, while keeping the increases at a level that will not have any significant impact on the number of people buying insurance.
Thomas Docherty
Has the Treasury done any work to enable it to hazard a guess as to how many people will not now take out motor or health insurance as a result of the rise?
Mr Gauke
We do not believe the rise will have a noticeable effect on the number of people taking out insurance, but I know that hon. Members are concerned about the impact of the IPT rises on households. I have already set out the average impact on households. Specifically in the case of the insurance covered by amendments 18 and 19, the IPT rate increase will add only about £6 a year to the average motor insurance premium, and for those who buy private medical insurance the rise will cost less than £10 a year on average. Consequently, it is difficult to make the case that the increase will prove much of a deterrent to people taking out motor insurance or private medical insurance. Consumers are well used to insurance premiums fluctuating, and the modest effects of the rise will not act as any significant deterrent.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Exchequer Secretary says that the rise will not be a deterrent, but it will certainly provide an incentive to people who pass the tax on to the consumer to increase charges over and above the amount in question and then blame the Government for it, as we have seen with so many other taxes.
Mr Gauke
Let us see what happens. I am not sure that the evidence necessarily supports that concern, but I am sure that if it happens the hon. Gentleman will come back to the House to highlight it. Many within the insurance industry have themselves acknowledged that the rises are very modest and will not have a significant impact on households or on the take-up of insurance.
Amendment 15 would make the IPT rise announced in Budget contingent on the publication of an assessment of the effect of the rate rise on consumers and the insurance industry. We believe it is unnecessary. I have set out fairly comprehensively in this debate the expected impact on households and businesses—in broad terms, that impact will be minimal.
I should also point out to hon. Members the considerable amount of information on the impact of the Budget that we have already put in the public domain. In particular, for the first time the Government have set out their analysis of the distributional impact on households of the Budget measures, including the IPT rate changes, in annex A of the Red Book. Separately, other organisations such as the Association of British Insurers have given estimates of the impact of the rise on households, which are very much in line with our own estimates. Naturally, the industry and consumers do not like the rises, and we do not like having to introduce them, but the industry accepts that they are going to happen and is preparing accordingly.
Finally, I wish to address amendment 48 which, as the shadow Chief Secretary said, is a probing amendment aimed at exploring the reasons for the rise and its impacts. He asked a specific question about the balance between the standard and higher rates. For 2010-11—Members should remember that the rate increases will occur in January 2011—the revenue raised will be £110 million from the standard rate and £5 million from the higher rate. For the following years, the higher rate will raise £25 million each year, with the balance made up from the standard rate, which in most years raises £450 million.
The shadow Chief Secretary also asked about the reason for the increase in the higher rate from 17.5% to 20%. As he correctly surmised, it is to do with value shifting and the fact that travel insurance is often sold with other products on which VAT is payable. A discrepancy between the IPT on travel insurance and other rates may create dangers of value shifting, and that is the reason for the proposal.
Mr Gauke
As I said earlier, the cost of my hon. Friend’s amendment to exempt motor insurance from the IPT rise would reduce revenue by £160 million a year, and exempting medical insurance would decrease revenue by a further £40 million a year. I hope that that is helpful.
The increase is necessary. It is an attempt to bring our deficit under control. We need to make some tough decisions, and that is one.
Mr Chope
I shall not get involved in that debate now, because I want to keep the focus on the narrow issues in my amendments. I am disappointed that the Minister did not respond to my concern—echoed by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and others—about the regressive nature of the insurance premium tax, especially on the motoring public. One suggestion I made was that instead of having a standard tax on insurance premiums, we could have an individual transaction tax so that every motorist would pay the same tax for his annual insurance premium.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is right to return to this point, and I apologise for not responding to it in my earlier remarks. If we took that approach on a revenue-neutral basis, we would end up essentially with the same transaction tax level on a big and small car—whether a Bentley or a Skoda, we would have the same transaction tax. Is that what he is advocating? That itself would be regressive.
Mr Chope
I was not thinking about Bentleys versus Skodas; I was thinking about the student living in Liverpool trying to run a vehicle that is perhaps 10 or 15 years old and finding it hard to make ends meet, and about the person who might have several Bentleys in the garage covered under some collective insurance. I am concerned about those living in high-risk areas or who are in high-risk groups—because they are young drivers, for example—whose insurance premiums are significantly higher than those of, for example, the person whom my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) mentioned who is in their mid-50s and happens to own a Bentley. I do not think that, prima facie, that is fair. I was throwing out a challenge to my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to see whether an individual transaction tax that is not related to the size of the premium might produce a fairer result. It seems as though it might not, but perhaps we can correspond on that so that we can take the matter forward.
We have covered a lot of ground in this debate, and I have already expressed my disappointment. The question now arises of whether we should seek to divide the Committee on the proposals. I live in hope—perhaps I am naive—that in due course we will get a better and more positive response from the coalition to questions of responsibility and encouraging people to do the right thing, and that it will send out those positive measures. To seek a Division would probably be counter-productive because, apart from anything else, I would have to pick one, rather than both, of my amendments, which would mean picking on one particular type of insurance premium tax as against another. I am not sure that that is necessarily in accordance with the will of the Committee, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Gauke
I thank the shadow Minister for his words of support. It would be somewhat surprising if he did not support the measure, as I am sure that he would have introduced it had he been in our position.
Clause 8 relates to corporation tax avoidance involving de-recognition. The corporation tax rules on financial instruments broadly follow the treatment of profits and losses recognised in accounts drawn up under generally accepted accounting practice. That applies to most financial instruments, including loans and derivatives. However, in certain cases where the terms of an asset and a liability are closely related, accounting practice may mean that neither the income nor the expenses arising on them are included in the accounts. For example, a company may have issued preference shares on which the dividends payable equal the interest received. As the company is economically flat in such cases, accounting practice allows it to de-recognise both the income and expenses. However, for tax purposes, that gives rise to a mismatch. The income is taxable, while the dividends are not deductible.
Unfortunately, avoidance schemes have continually sought to exploit the practice of de-recognising income. In 2006, legislation was introduced to block such avoidance by overriding the de-recognition for tax purposes. It required that where certain conditions are met, taxable profits are to be computed as if there had been no de-recognition in the accounts. It was necessary to amend the original legislation in 2007 and 2009 to block new schemes. Previous action has protected something like between £100 million and £150 million. To answer the shadow Minister’s question, it is anticipated that the measures in the Bill will protect £150 million per annum.
It is worth making the point that in addition to blocking the latest schemes, the Government intend to remove the opportunity for new abuse. We will amend the anti-avoidance rule in question so that it works in a more wide-ranging manner. Such a rule will make it unnecessary repeatedly to block similar versions of what is essentially the same scheme, and will allow us to address the matter more completely. HMRC will issue a technical note on the subject shortly, with a view to us making the amendments in the Finance Bill 2011. Any such changes would be effective from a date to be announced in the autumn, following consultation on the details of the proposals.
I note your earlier guidance, Mr Evans, and I will not go into detail on the points that the shadow Minister made, but we continue to look at the issue, and the Government take anti-avoidance measures very seriously.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Gauke Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
2. What assessment he has made of the likely effect of the proposed increase in the standard rate of value added tax on the retail sector in Wales.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
A full impact assessment was published on Budget day. Although it focused on the compliance costs for all businesses, it had an emphasis on retailers, as it acknowledged that they were expected to incur higher compliance costs. However, having experienced two VAT changes in the previous two years, retailers should now be familiar with the necessary system and process changes.
Chris Bryant
I am sorry but that was a really complacent answer. Much of the retail sector in my constituency is very dependent on the business that comes in through the door from pensioners. There are 13,000 of them in the Rhondda, a growing number, and they are the people who will be very heavily hit by the VAT increase, because they will have less discretionary income to spend on gifts and the things that make life worth living. Will the hon. Gentleman look specifically at how the retail sector in more distant areas—outside the main city centres—can be supported?
Mr Gauke
The fact is that we had to raise VAT because there was no money left. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is proposing that we should have cut spending by even more, but I do not think that that would have a lot of support on his Benches or on ours. After all, our predecessors looked very closely at raising VAT and would have done so had the previous Prime Minister not vetoed it.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
What would the people of Wales make of the fact that the previous Government were going to raise VAT to 19%? Would they not surely conclude that this was going to happen under any Government elected in May 2010 because of the mess made by the last one?
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
When the Chancellor rose to give us his Budget a few weeks ago, he promised that he would give it to us straight. He somehow forgot to tell us that Britain’s pensioners may face an £8 billion VAT bill over the course of this Parliament. Given that neither Government party has a mandate for introducing VAT increases, does the Minister agree that, at the very least, this House deserves a report on the impact of VAT on pensioners before the increase comes into effect?
Mr Gauke
We have provided more detail of the distributional impact of this VAT rise than the previous Government ever did or would have done had they increased VAT last December. The fact is that this Chancellor—like this Treasury team—has the courage of his convictions to do the right thing, unlike his predecessors, who neither pursued the policies they believed in nor had a leader they believed in.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
3. What recent representations he has received on the level of the UK national debt relative to that of other countries; and if he will make a statement.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
6. What representations he has received from employers in the north-west on relief from national insurance contributions for new businesses; and if he will make a statement.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The holiday on national insurance contributions will support enterprise and private sector job creation. Representations from employers have been supportive of reducing taxes on jobs, and 400,000 new businesses are expected to benefit from the holiday on employer national insurance contributions, including about 70,000 in the north-west.
David Rutley
It is clear that this important Budget proposal will help to generate much-needed jobs for small businesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a much better way of supporting job creation in places such as Macclesfield and the north-west, and in other regions, than relying on the public sector, as the Labour party did?
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
How many businesses—perhaps the Minister could name them given that there are so few—will do better because of the national insurance cut and will not suffer because of the VAT increase and the cutback in demand, which will be disastrous for businesses in the north-west?
Mr Gauke
The fact is that businesses would much rather we focus on dealing with the jobs tax, which our predecessors brought in. We recognise that we have to reduce the deficit and that tax has to play a role in that, but what we can do to create jobs in the private sector is reduce the burden from national insurance contributions. This particular policy, directed at areas where the public sector is largest and where we need a stronger private sector, has to be the way forward.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
7. What plans he has for future changes to income tax arrangements.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
In the Budget, the Government announced a £1,000 increase in personal allowances for under-65s. We estimate that 23 million basic rate taxpayers will gain by up to £170 per year from this measure, and that 880,000 will be taken out of tax altogether. This is the first step towards our long-term objective to raise the personal allowance to £10,000.
Malcolm Bruce
I am very grateful to the Minister for that informative answer. Can he give a more precise timetable for when the £10,000 threshold will be released? Will it be before the end of this Parliament? In other words, can it be even earlier than the five years that would otherwise be required?
Mr Gauke
I cannot give a precise timetable, but as I said, that is our long-term objective. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a long and distinguished record in campaigning for that policy. I am sure that he will be pleased with the steps that we have taken so far, and I hope that others will follow.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
When Ministers are thinking about the future planning for local income tax, do they not understand the concern on the Opposition Benches and in the country that this afternoon the chief lobbyist for the banking industry has been introduced as a Member of the other place, meaning that the interests of the banking industry will come before those of low-income families?
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
8. What assessment he has made of the level of tax avoidance during the period when the rate of capital gains tax was at 18%.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government estimate that prior to the emergency Budget, upwards of £1 billion of income tax revenues was forgone through income being turned into capital gains.
Jo Swinson
I thank the Minister for that reply, which shows that when the previous Labour Government reduced capital gains tax, they created an enormous loophole for tax avoidance for the wealthiest in our society. Does he have any further plans to clamp down on tax avoidance, to ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share?
Mr Gauke
There are measures contained in the Finance Bill, which we are currently debating, that will reduce tax avoidance. We take the issue seriously, but the hon. Lady puts her finger on one of the problems. There were a number of structural difficulties in the tax system as it was left to us, one of which was the wide disparity between income tax rates and capital gains tax rates, and we have been able to do something about that.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
In introducing the Budget, the Chancellor justified the move to a 28% rate in the following terms:
“I asked the Treasury to examine what would have happened if we had increased the rate much further beyond 28%, and its dynamic analysis showed that that would have resulted in smaller total revenues.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 178.]
Can the hon. Gentleman justify that?
Mr Gauke
Yes, and had the hon. Gentleman been in the Chamber at about quarter past 10 last night, he would have heard me doing so at some length. The fact is that for every 1% by which the gap between income tax and capital gains tax is reduced, we get an extra £60 million from income tax. However, there is also a countervailing pressure, which is that fewer transactions are entered into. The analysis based on studies done in America and elsewhere shows that 28% is about the level at which we maximise revenue.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
9. What assessment he has made of the effect on low-income families of the implementation of the proposals in the June 2010 Budget.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
T2. Does the recent experience of changes in VAT rates support the assumption of both the Treasury and the Institute for Fiscal Studies that there will be full pass-through of the proposed increase in VAT, or might we reasonably hope that large retailers will shoulder some of the burden?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The assessment set out in the Red Book is that it is likely that two thirds will be passed on immediately and most of the rest will be passed on over the course of the next 12 months. In some cases retailers may bear some of the increase themselves, and we will obviously be studying the matter very closely.
Mr Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Does the Chief Secretary, in the Chancellor’s absence, agree that the independence and credibility of the OBR are absolutely paramount? Sir Alan Budd said to the Treasury Committee this morning that the numbers he released two weeks ago
“were not an appropriate basis for attempting to estimate the effects of the June Budget on general government employment”,
and the Prime Minister was quite wrong to claim that they were. Would it not be better for the OBR to be more accountable to this House, with its appointments being subject to confirmation hearings by the Treasury Committee, and for its deliberations to be completely open and transparent? What we have at the moment is a good idea strangled at birth by the way in which this Government have been treating it.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
T4. When the Exchequer Secretary answered the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) earlier on capital gains tax, he quite properly justified the increase in CGT on the basis of a dynamic model of both income tax and CGT. Will he publish that model and its supporting evidence?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
T3. The Chief Secretary justifies massive cuts to the public sector through fears of a sovereign debt crisis as the credit rating agencies downgrade our debt, but those same agencies were giving triple A ratings to junk financial instruments right up to the crash. Can he explain whether credit rating agencies, discredited as they are, or Tory ideology is driving these cuts?
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
T5. I am sure that Ministers can understand the disappointment of my constituents when Cadbury’s new owners stated their intention to move mass production abroad from the Summerdale plant near my constituency. In the light of this and of the dramatic decline in manufacturing employment over the past 13 years—down from 4.7 million jobs in 1997 to 2.6 million jobs now—what steps are they taking to support manufacturers in this country?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that we live in a globalised world and that businesses can choose where they locate their activity. That is why we are introducing substantial cuts in corporation tax, from 28% to 24%. I was delighted to read this morning that the previous Chancellor was an enthusiast for reducing corporation tax—although we did not see so much evidence of that when he was in power. The fact is that the Budget proposals will benefit all sectors of society, including manufacturing, and we will see £13 billion more investment over the next few years as a consequence of those measures.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Many businesses in the north-west saw the value of regional development agencies and were very much opposed to their abolition. What consultation was carried out with business leaders on the proposal to abolish RDAs?
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
T6. In view of the importance of this issue to Opposition Members and their colleagues in the other place, can the Minister confirm that there are no plans for the Government to introduce VAT on the sale of hardback books?
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Mums in my constituency who work part time in the public sector and earn, say, £11,000 or £12,000 a year are telling me that their pay is to be frozen, so far from low-paid workers being protected, as was promised, it seems they are going to be hit the hardest, because that pay freeze is pro rata. Can the Chief Secretary confirm that and tell me how many low-paid part-time public servants will be affected?
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
T8. The Chancellor took the difficult decision to increase VAT to deal with the dire economic legacy of the previous Labour Government. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the increase in VAT once this coalition Government have dealt with the deficit and got the economy back on its feet?
Mr Gauke
I can tell my hon. Friend that he is right; this decision was necessary and unavoidable. The intention is to get the public finances under control over the course of this Parliament. We will debate what we do at the end of that process nearer the time, when we will work out what we will do with the proceeds of growth.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
In a speech last night to the bankers, the Financial Secretary referred to the Government’s proposals on a financial activities tax. Is it the Government’s intention that that sort of proposed legislation is just in reserve in case the bankers are too generous with themselves with bonuses, or are the Government determined to introduce such a tax? Why not go further, with a full financial transactions tax?
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
T10. Average wages in my constituency are below the national average, so the rise in the income tax threshold announced in the Budget was most welcome. Can the Minister please give an assurance that he will maintain a focus on increasing the personal tax threshold, as the prospect of being taken out of tax altogether is far more appealing than the prospect that the previous Government offered, which was the non-stop filling in of forms to claim back just a fraction of the money that people had already earned?
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Chief Secretary tell the House whether he thinks it is completely ethical for the definition of “unemployment” to be changed just before Prime Minister’s Question Time and for that be made public without telling the media that that was the case? Would he comment on the fact that the person who did this was seconded from a hedge fund and is therefore not independent? Will the Chief Secretary therefore confirm that that was the reason why this person had to resign and bring scorn—
Finance Bill
David Gauke Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Timms
I think it would still be difficult, complex and cumbersome. A judgment will have to be made about whether it is the right thing to do—effectively, the benefit of reducing avoidance would have to be worth the additional complexity. I am sure that this debate is still to come.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Before responding to amendment 11, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) for making his maiden speech earlier. He is rightly proud to represent that fine constituency, and I am sure that his constituency will be rightly proud of him. I hope he represents his constituency for many years to come. I will deal with the issues he raised about capital gains tax—as already noted, he shows great independence of mind on this point—when I respond to a later grouping of amendments.
I am very pleased to see the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) back at the Dispatch Box. It is good to see him returned here and I hope he is returning to good health. He is certainly a formidable person to face on the other side of the Dispatch Box, as he has great expertise and experience in this particular subject. He was a highly popular and effective Minister, performing the same role as I now perform. His are big shoes to fill and I am sure that there will be plenty of disagreements in the months ahead, but it is none the less a great pleasure to see the right hon. Gentleman back, well and in good form.
Amendment 11 seeks the publication of a report assessing corporation tax avoidance and evasion and setting out measures to ensure the payment of tax before the reduction in the main rate of corporation tax can be applied. The Government are committed to a competitive corporation tax rate, which will show that the UK is open for business and encourage growth. The amendment is narrowly focused on the role of evasion and avoidance, so I shall explain later and in more detail our reasons for the more general changes proposed.
Terminology was a large part of the debate on the matter. As we have heard, tax evasion occurs when someone acts against the law. Tax avoidance involves compliance with the letter but not the spirit of the law, and it is right that the Government seek to minimise that. Tax planning is a case of acting in both the spirit and the letter of the law. There is a distinction, although there will be occasions when the line is a little blurred.
The Government are committed to tackling robustly avoidance and evasion, which undermine the effectiveness of the tax system, distort competition and increase the burden of taxation on those who do comply with the spirit and letter of the law. The emergency Budget clearly sets out the Government’s strategic approach to reducing tax avoidance and evasion. As a number of my hon. Friends have pointed out, some matters relate to how we make tax law, and to ensuring that tax law has as much clarity as possible. At the time of the Budget, we produced a well-received publication setting out a more deliberative and consultative way to make tax law.
There is also a strong case for a more simplified tax code. Too many allowances and reliefs and too much complication within the tax system provide opportunity for tax avoidance, which we seek to address. We will address long-standing avoidance risks, and I have announced an informal consultation on the introduction of a general anti-avoidance rule. I appreciate that there are arguments on both sides, some of which we heard from the right hon. Member for East Ham. We will ensure that we make changes in the law in a way that prevents increasing complexity and reduces the need for frequent legislative revisions. We will also ensure that we build in sustainable defences against avoidance opportunities when undertaking policy reform. The Government have already closed specific loopholes to prevent the avoidance of corporation tax, and clauses 8 and 9 protect about £200 million of tax revenues per year.
The Government fully support the type of transparency for which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) calls in his amendment. As others have pointed out, that form of transparency already exists. The right hon. Member for East Ham pointed out that HMRC has published an assessment of corporation tax avoidance and evasion, although it deals with not just corporation tax but tax across the board. In December 2009, HMRC published the document, “Measuring Tax Gaps 2009”, which estimated the overall tax gaps across HMRC’s regimes for the first time. Alongside that statistical release, HMRC also published estimates of the tax gap by behaviour, including avoidance and evasion, as well as the actions being taken to reduce the gap. As we have heard, HMRC’s estimate for the tax gap as a whole is £40 billion, and the definition includes evasion and avoidance, debt and legal interpretation—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) pointed out, there are sometimes disputes between two parties, both acting in good faith.
Mr Redwood
My hon. Friend reinforces my point: avoidance covers a variety of different things. In this case, it seems to cover conduct that a Government are trying to encourage, as well as conduct that a Government are trying to repress or stop. That is why the House needs a little more humility instead of rushing into saying, “There’s all this tax being avoided.” Some of it is being avoided for reasons that the previous Government approved of.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who brings me to my next point.
The Government see the distinction between tax avoidance and tax planning, but those lines can be blurred, and sometimes use of the terminology is not as accurate as it might be. For example, I quote the “Missing Billions” report, produced for the TUC, which, after setting out a series of numbers leading towards the estimate for corporation tax avoidance, states:
“Much may be due to legitimate tax planning, but by no means all is. Some, undoubtedly, is due to tax avoidance.”
That seems to me to suggest a slight blurring of the lines. Again, I am sure that I will be corrected in Mr Murphy’s blog if I am wrong, but there does appear to be some confusion.
I am not suggesting that tax avoidance and tax evasion do not matter. The £40 billion figure is significant. However, it is also true that we cannot pretend that if we just address this problem, the deficit will go away. Although it is always tempting for a new Minister in a new Government to attack everything that happened before, I must point out—not purely out of fondness for my predecessor, the right hon. Member for East Ham—that, in international terms, £40 billion is not too bad as a percentage of tax revenue raised.
HMRC does not do particularly badly. Indeed, it tends to lead the field in this respect. Nor has it deteriorated during a period in which it has incurred substantial job losses, as a number of Members have pointed out. I believe that it employed 97,000 people in 2005, and the most recent figure is 69,000. It is a question of deploying resources as effectively and efficiently as possible.
None the less, to the extent that it is possible to go further in reducing evasion and avoidance, the Government are keen to do so, and I have set out some of the ways in which we intend to do so. I can tell the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that we already assess the amount of tax lost through avoidance and evasion, and that we are committed to reduce those losses as much as possible. We will also continue to publish the tax gap figures as frequently as possible, to provide a focus for HMRC and to ensure that our debate is well informed.
I hope that what I have said gives some reassurance to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. Let me also remind the shadow Minister that HMRC introduced a banking code of practice in 2009, and HMRC’s annual report will provide anonymised statistics on the number of banks that have adopted it. We believe that the code encourages banks not to enter into, or be party to, avoidance arrangements, but we will of course continue to monitor and review its operation.
John McDonnell
I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance that information on the tax gap will continue to be published, but my amendment also deals with when it will be published, and asks for further information to be given on the measures that will be taken to tackle the problem.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman’s points have been noted. Today’s debate is the second on this matter in which I have taken part in my present post—the first was in Westminster Hall—and I am well aware that it is of considerable concern to Members on both sides of the House. It has also featured heavily in Treasury questions, which will take place again tomorrow. Who knows? There may be a question on this very subject then.
The hon. Gentleman is right to hold Ministers and HMRC to account in regard to how we seek to reduce the tax gap. The Government are taking the matter seriously, and, in the spirit of transparency in which we operate, we will provide as much information as we can so that our debate is as well informed as possible. In the light of that assurance, I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that the amendment is not necessary and will withdraw it.
John McDonnell
I think that the debate has been helpful to Members on both sides of the Committee. An attempt has been made to get out of the trenches, and to engage in a wide-ranging discussion of how we can proceed in a pragmatic way. I believe that this will become one of the key issues that people will expect us to address as the economic crisis continues. If they see public expenditure cut so that their local schools are not refurbished, and if they see a tax on welfare benefits, they will expect us at least to maximise the revenue from the tax that people and organisations should be paying. Justice and fairness in the taxation system will become critically important to more and more people.
Some of the arguments that we have heard today have been very helpful, and at times they have been entertaining. I am fascinated by the concept that reducing taxation reduces evasion and avoidance: that is almost an argument for no taxation at all, although it may not gain much purchase in the House. We all accept the arguments about simplicity, but the problem with simplicity is that it makes loopholes possible, and we then need complexity to tackle the loopholes. It is a circular problem. However, it is a joint venture for us to try to ensure that the legislation that we draft is appropriately simple.
Matthew Hancock
I shall keep this contribution extremely brief, given the hour. I was surprised by some of the arguments made by Opposition Members. I am not all that surprised that the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the shadow Minister, does not support amendment 21, which was moved by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), not least because before the election he said we would need any bank levy to be globally agreed. Indeed, the current shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said:
“Countries can’t go it alone. It is very important that we do this internationally”.
Conservatives and Liberal Democrats campaigned during the election for a unilateral bank levy, no matter what happened in the rest of the world, so it is not surprising that we do not listen to Opposition Members who argue that they are now in favour of one. They have performed a U-turn in an extremely short time.
Another point I want to make is that the shadow Minister said that his party’s policy is that corporation tax should be the lowest in the G7, but Italy’s corporation tax is now 27.5% and Canada’s is set to be reduced to 27.2%, which means that Labour’s policy is to reduce corporation tax, including on the banks, as he just confirmed, without the bank levy. A bank levy would more than offset the corporation tax reductions, so Labour Members are in all sorts of a tumble on this.
Everybody will note the difference between the Government, who argued before the election that we needed a unilateral bank levy and who are delivering it within seven weeks, and Labour Members, who argued that we should not have a bank levy, before performing a U-turn within 10 weeks.
Mr Gauke
Amendments 21, 34 and 50 relate to the impact of the corporation tax cuts on the banking sector. Amendment 21 would leave the
“main rate of corporation tax for financial year 2011…at 28%”
for
“banking institutions”, disapplying the 1% decrease, and amendments 34 and 50 ask for an assessment of the impact of the rate reduction on banks.
The proposals are helpful. Understandably, there is a frustration with the banking sector and a desire that it pay a fair share. The Government share that belief. We think that banks should make a fair contribution in respect of the risk that they pose for the UK financial system, which we have seen in the past few years. That is exactly why we announced in the Budget the introduction of a bank levy from 1 January 2011. Tomorrow, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will announce a public consultation with a view to implementing the levy on that date, and the measure will be included in next year’s Finance Bill.
The levy is a surgical approach, intended to encourage banks to move to less risky funding profiles, and a contribution reflective of economic risk. A tax based simply on profits, such as corporation tax, is not related to risk and will not create the behavioural effect that we believe the banking levy will achieve.
The overall impact on banks of the proposed reduction in corporation tax depends on a number of factors, and I will provide some details in a moment. None the less, I should like to put it on record that it is entirely right that hon. Members ask such questions. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made a thoughtful and probing speech, and I was also interested to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). However, I wondered, given his concern about the impact on the banking sector, precisely which angle he was coming from. Those who remember the debate prior to the general election will recall, for example, the remarks of the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) who, in an interview on “The Andrew Marr Show” on 21 March, argued against proposals for a unilateral bank levy, saying that he thought it could work only if there were international agreement, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) said.
Of the Conservatives’ policy of introducing a unilateral bank levy, which was also a policy of the Liberal Democrats, the then Chancellor said that we were taking a hell of a risk, given that the banking industry employs more than 1 million people in this country. He seemed to be somewhat concerned that we were going to far and too hard. I do not know whether the shadow Minister is worried because the proposals are too tough on the banks, or because they are not tough enough.
Chris Leslie
I thank the Minister at least for that recognition, but I wonder whether he could take some time to justify the fact that the proposed banking levy is so low in relation to, for example, the American arrangement. Does he understand the incredulity and frustration that banks should be given this cashback bonus in the form of the corporation tax cut at this particular time? I want to hear him justify that.
Mr Gauke
Let me turn to the heart of this matter, because we have had quite a lengthy debate on it. We have heard concerns that the corporation tax would cancel out the effect of the bank levy or offset it, and that there would be a cashback bonus, to use the hon. Gentleman’s phrase. The shadow Minister asked whether the banking levy will “far outweigh” the benefit to banks of the cut in corporation tax. Perhaps the easiest thing I can do in response—there is much more one could say about corporation tax, and I will in future debates—is to refer to my answer to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who asked the
“Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue from the financial services sector to be foregone by the Exchequer as a result of the proposed reduction in corporation tax in each financial year to 2015-16.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2010; Vol. 512, c. 610W.]
We have the numbers only until 2014-15, and I should point out that the financial services sector is somewhat broader than just banks. It includes insurance, pension funds and auxiliary financial services, so the numbers refer to the corporation tax cost not only for banks, but for other financial services. However, I will compare those with the bank levy yield. For 2011-12, the corporation tax costs will be £0.1 billion, whereas the bank levy yield will be £1.15 billion; for 2012-13, corporation tax costs will be £0.2 billion, compared with a bank levy yield of £2.32 billion; for 2013-14, corporation tax costs will be £0.3 billion, compared with a £2.5 billion additional yield from the bank levy; and for 2014-15, the corporation tax costs will be £0.4 billion, compared with a bank levy yield of £2.4 billion. Even in this last year, where the differential is at its narrowest, we can see that it has not been cancelled out or offset. There is no cashback, and the banks are not quids in as a consequence.
The test that the shadow Minister gave was whether the bank levy yield far outweighs the benefit of the corporation tax change, and the answer is clearly yes. Given that the proposal for a differential corporation tax rate in amendment No. 21 is not supported by the Front Benchers of the party to which the hon. for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) belongs, I urge him to withdraw it.
Chris Leslie
The Minister is saying that £400 million is a small amount to be given in cashback to the banks in this corporation tax giveaway, but that sum could offset the necessity to scrap the health in pregnancy grant. It could offset the need to reduce the maternity allowance to just the first child. Those are important for users of public services, and he surely understands that.
Mr Gauke
Our aim was to rebalance the tax system. We are requiring the banking sector to pay at least £2 billion more in tax as a consequence of these proposals. That is not a minor matter. Other sectors, including manufacturing, will benefit from the reduction in corporation tax, but the banks will not benefit because we are introducing the bank levy. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment No. 21, given that his Front Benchers recognise the difficulties of a separate corporation tax rate for banks. I believe that I have satisfied the tests set out by the right hon. Member for East Ham, because the bank levy yield far outweighs the benefits of the corporation tax for banks.
I hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives—
The Temporary Chair (Mr Benton)
Order. The background noise is a little high. Will Members please keep it down?
Mr Gauke
Beginning tomorrow, we will consult on the bank levy. The intention is to find a means of discouraging risk, and that is why the targeted approach of the bank levy is appropriate. It will raise additional revenue, and it is right to do so. We think that we have the balance right in raising additional revenue while enabling banks to lend more, and we are also taking steps to encourage that further.
In conclusion, I think that I have satisfied the concerns underlying the amendments and I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division.
Chris Leslie
Having heard what the Minister had to say, I am not convinced that he makes a case for giving away £400 million to the banks, especially as Members on the other side of the House constantly ask us where the money would come from and how we would reduce the deficit. That sum would offset the need to abolish the health in pregnancy grant. It would offset the need to reduce to the CPI the indexation of housing benefit. It would offset the need to scrap the maternity allowance for second children, and so on. I hope that my hon. Friends will remember the £400 million giveaway to the banks in this corporation tax reduction.
I recognise that the consensus in the debate is that it is important to test the right amendment this evening. I therefore wish to withdraw my amendment, but I hope that one of the amendments that would require the Treasury to justify and assess the impact of the corporation tax change on the banks will be tested. That is the least we should be doing.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 34, in page 1, line 6, at end add—
‘(2) Prior to this rate taking effect, the Chancellor will place in the Library of the House of Commons an assessment of the impact of this clause on the banking sector.’.—(Stephen Timms.)
Stephen Timms
I beg to move amendment 49, page 1, line 6, at end add—
‘(2) In section 2(2)(a) of the Finance Act 2010, after “companies”, add “not meeting the condition in (c) below”.
(3) At the end of section 2 of the Finance Act 2010 add—
“(c) 26 per cent. on profits of companies whose taxable profits will be increased by more than 1 per cent. as a result of changes in investment allowances.”.’.
It is a puzzling feature of the Budget that, on the one hand, the Chancellor is gambling on a big increase in investment, and basing his Budget arithmetic on the belief that investment will grow in each of the next three years at a rate that has been achieved in only one year in the last 40. That is an heroic assumption about investment growth, and if it proves to be untrue, the Budget gamble will fail. At the same time as banking on that huge increase in investment, he has announced that he will drastically cut the incentives for investment. The rates of capital allowances will be reduced from 20% to 18%, and the annual investment allowance will be cut by three quarters, from £100,000 to just £25,000. It is hard to see how the forecast growth in investment can be reconciled with such a big cut in investment allowances. The Budget was billed as Britain being open for business, yet it will clearly reduce the prospects for growth, as the Office for Business Responsibility confirmed in its two projections, before and after the Budget. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund, in its projections last week, also downgraded its growth forecast for the UK economy as a result of the Budget.
We have here a collision of conflicting objectives, which we highlight in the amendment. We propose a lower rate of corporation tax for companies that lose out from the reduction of allowances above a certain threshold. The Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out before the election that the losers as a result of the Conservatives’ approach would be those making big investments and earning modest profits, notably
“in the manufacturing and transport sectors”,
and that the gainers would typically be in the financial sector.
We do not yet know what the legislation on allowances will say. The Chancellor said in his Budget speech that the change in the rate of capital allowances and the lower annual investment allowance would not take effect until 2012. Will the Minister confirm that the coalition Government are planning no reduction at all in investment allowances in the current financial year? Will the changes announced by the Chancellor in the Budget be in the Finance Bill later this year or will they be delayed until next year’s Finance Bill? I hope that the Minister will also comment on the principles underlying our amendment. How can it make sense to reduce so drastically the incentives for investment in a period in which the Budget depends so heavily on an unprecedentedly large and sustained increase in investment?
Mr Gauke
As I have already explained, the Chancellor or the Exchequer set out a business tax package in the Budget that included rate cuts and reductions in allowances that are good for business and growth overall. Amendment 49 proposes that clause 1 be amended to reduce the main rate of corporation tax to 26% for those companies whose tax bill will increase by more than 1% as a result of the reduction in investment allowances. That is a somewhat complex mechanism, but it provides an opportunity to raise the matter of capital allowances.
As part of a package to improve the UK’s competitiveness, it was announced that from April 2012 there would be reductions in the rates of writing-down allowances for plant and machinery and a reduction in the annual investment allowance. The Government will reduce the main rate of corporation tax to 26% that year—2012—and by that reduction, alongside changes to allowances, we will achieve the results that the amendment seeks. Furthermore, by not implementing the changes to allowances for two years, but reducing corporation tax rates next year, we are giving companies a full year to benefit from the reductions in rates, alongside current levels of allowances. Further reductions in the main rate of corporation tax follow in later years and capital allowances remain broadly in line with average rates of economic depreciation. To answer the shadow Minister’s questions, no changes are made to the so-called investment allowances in this Finance Bill and none is planned for the next financial year.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Why does the Minister believe that, if the Budget begins to work and we see businesses begin to pull the country out of recession, that is the right time for the Government to take away the incentive for further investment in business growth? That seems paradoxical to us all and to damage the very prospects of the recovery that he claims he wants to aid.
Mr Gauke
As I said a moment ago, the changes to capital allowances will take effect from 2012, and we believe that there is a substantial benefit for the UK economy in reducing the corporation tax rate. Indeed, it is a direction of travel that our predecessors followed when they reduced the rate from 30% to 28%, but we do not think that that went far enough. The point was raised in earlier debates that the UK has lost its competitive advantage in having a relatively low rate of corporation tax, as a number of other countries have cut their corporation tax rates much further than we have over the last 13 years. We believe that the lower rate sends a very clear signal that Britain is open for business and it is a demonstration of the direction of travel in which we are going. Assessment of the impact of Budget measures on investment over the next few years suggests an increase in investment of £13 billion.
The Budget thus provides a set of proposals and a set of reforms to corporation tax that will encourage further investment. As I say, it is a sign that Britain is open for business and a sign to investors and businesses throughout the world that the UK is a good place in which to do business. We believe that the package as a whole is well balanced and that it will aid a private sector recovery, partly funded through reforms to capital allowances and partly through the bank levy, as we debated earlier. Legislation is not required for the changes in capital allowances in this Finance Bill or indeed in next year’s, but we have set out a clear sense of direction that has been welcomed by business groups as a whole. We therefore urge the shadow Minister not to press the rather complicated amendment 49. It will not make any difference, because we will legislate to this effect in any event—without the complicated mechanism in the amendment. I urge him to withdraw it.
Stephen Timms
I am disappointed by that response. I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) did not get an answer to the telling point that he put to the Minister. There is a real issue about how this large increase in investment is supposed to be achieved at exactly the time that incentives for investment are being reduced. Nevertheless, I shall not press the amendment to the vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Leslie
I do not agree that the private sector is crowded out in that way. I do not think that there is quite the evidence to suggest that. However, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman, had he been in government during the crisis that the credit crunch provoked, would have done anything massively different to underpin and insure some of the banks against their losses at that time, purchasing shares in various banking institutions in order to keep the banking system going. I understand the partisan nature of his point, but all parties would have had to create that safety net for the banks at that time. I do not want to dwell on these matters, because time is limited and it is important to make my speech as brief as I can.
I want to ask the Minister specific questions about the absence of the small profits rate cut from the Bill, a matter on which I tabled an amendment. It is important to know why on earth it is not included. Typically, large corporations with their multi-million pound profits are at the front of the queue as far as this Government are concerned, but the real engine of growth in this economy is small firms. When I asked the Federation of Small Businesses about this, Stephen Alambritis, the head of public affairs, said that he was surprised at the signal sent to small businesses by the way in which the Bill is framed. He told me:
“It is important that small business is recognised in discussions about the Finance Bill. There should be a reduction in the tax rate for small business as there is for larger companies. There seems to be some discrimination from the coalition government, in that they are favouring large companies at the expense of small business”.
The Minister might say, “Of course they will get their cut,” but can we really trust the Government to deliver that if they are not putting such a measure in the Bill, particularly if they are not putting in the future years of the main rate cut, too?
A number of questions on this clause are exceptionally important. I obviously do not want to talk for too long, so I shall let the Minister respond.
Mr Gauke
In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a programme of measures aimed at improving the competitiveness of the UK economy, including four annual 1% reductions in the main rate of corporation tax, down to 24% in 2014, and a reduction in the small profits rate to 20% from April 2011, in contrast to the previous Government’s plan to increase it to 22%. That will reduce the tax rate for some 850,000 companies. The Budget also included, from April 2012, a reduction in the capital allowances main rate from 20% to 18%, a reduction in the special rate from 10% to 8% and a reduction in the annual investment allowance to £25,000. Despite that, investment allowances will permit more than 95% of businesses to offset completely their annual plant and machinery expenditure. As I said in our debate on amendment 49, by delaying these changes to allowances for two years but reducing the corporation tax rate next year, we are giving companies a year’s advantage.
We have been asked why we are legislating for the 1p cut in the main rate this year. This is the usual convention as the corporation tax main rate is usually set a year at a time. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) is right to say that there was an exception in 1984, when four years were done together, but the usual convention is to do these things a year at a time. A distinction has been made between the mainstream rate and the small profits rate. The right hon. Gentleman, who was a distinguished Treasury Minister for several years, may have forgotten that payers of the corporation tax main rate are within the quarterly instalments payment regime and so require advance notice of the rate, as they might be making payments of corporation tax liability before 1 April of the relevant year in which profits fall in the next financial year. Payers of corporation tax at the small profits rate do not require advance notice, as they have until nine months after the end of the accountancy period to pay their tax.
Both main and small profits corporation tax rates have traditionally been set in this manner, and what we are doing is consistent with the usual approach. The right hon. Gentleman asked about deferred tax assets, but they are not the reason why we are doing this; we are simply following the usual convention.
Opposition Members have asked whether business can have faith in what this Government do, but they should give us some time and they will see exactly what we will do: we will follow through on these promises. No great concerns about this issue have been raised with us. On deferred tax assets, when I was in opposition, I received representations not from a bank but from a major manufacturer who made the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, but that is not what has driven our thinking regarding the timing in this area.
Stephen Timms
The Minister says that it is normal practice to do what the Bill does, but as far as I know, there has been only one occasion since this tax was introduced when a series of reductions was announced, and those reductions were all legislated for in the 1984 legislation. I am not sure what precedent he is referring to that suggests that the way things are being this time is the normal way, as that is not the case.
Mr Gauke
The usual approach has been that the Finance Bill sets the small companies rate in-year, just as it sets the rate for income tax; the preceding year sets out the large companies rate. The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is a precedent for doing it another way, but we do not believe that business has any concerns that we will fail to follow through on our promises. There is an argument for doing it the other way, but we are pursuing the approach that has been adopted for a number of years.
Why cut corporation tax? As I have explained in debates on amendments to the clause, this package of measures takes real strides towards restoring the UK’s tax competitiveness, and will support economic growth in this country. It does so in a sustainable way that provides business with a clear direction on our long-term aims—a 1% cut every year for four years clearly demonstrates our position in making the UK open for business. No other legislative changes are proposed in the Finance Bill, although the small profits rate of corporation tax will reduce from 1 April 2011 from 21% to 20%, instead of rising to 22%, as the previous Government intended. I find it somewhat strange that those who were proposing to raise that tax are now outraged that we are not legislating to reduce it, or are calling for us to reduce it even further.
Stephen Timms
Will the hon. Gentleman comment on my question about whether it is an explicit aim of the Government that the UK rate of corporation tax should continue to be the lowest in the G7?
Mr Gauke
Of course, our proposals go beyond that. The explicit aim of this Government is to have the best corporate tax environment within the G20. That is considerably more ambitious, and we think that it will help to lead to the UK developing a stronger private sector that will lead us to recovery. The Bill and the clause represent a step in the right direction that will benefit the UK economy very strongly.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Rates of capital gains tax
Stephen Timms
I beg to move amendment 30, page 6, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert—
‘(3) The rate of capital gains tax in respect of gains accruing in a tax year to—
(a) the trustees of a settlement is 28%, and
(b) The personal representatives of a deceased person is 18% for the first £10,000 of gains and 28% thereafter.’.
The Government have decided to raise the rate of capital gains tax for people paying higher rate income tax. We are not going to object to that; indeed, we are interested to know why a higher rate has not been adopted. The rate will be left at 18% for people paying basic rate tax, but the higher rate of 28% will apply to all trusts. Some people with low incomes have their interests represented by trusts, and there is a case that it would be unfair for them to pay the higher rate. However, it has been agreed that the rate of income tax on discretionary trusts will be 50%, so I accept that it is logical to apply the higher rate of capital gains tax to them as well, although I have no doubt that that this is a question to which the House will want to return in future debates.
Amendment 30 applies to one specific situation that has been drawn to our attention by the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group—that is, the position of so-called estates in course of administration, to which the Bill as drafted would apply, in every case, a capital gains tax rate of 28%. In the case of the majority of estates of people who have died and who paid basic rate income tax prior to their death, those people, had they still been alive, would have been entitled to realise at least some capital gains at the lower rate of 18%. The Bill, however, applies a rate of 28% to any taxable gain.
The most common problem that the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group had in mind was a case in which a house increases in value between the point of the owner’s death and the point at which it is sold. Under the Bill as drafted, the whole of any such gain would be taxed at 28%, even if there was no other income or capital gain accruing to the estate at all.
I acknowledge that this is a relatively straightforward problem to identify but rather more difficult to solve. The amendment suggests that to remedy pragmatically what could, as I hope I have set out, otherwise be unfair, the first £10,000 of gains in a year should always be charged at 18%, rather than 28%, with gains above £10,000 being charged at 28%. I accept that that is not an ideal solution, because wealthy estates would benefit as well as the estates of people with low incomes. If the Exchequer Secretary has a better solution, I would be interested and eager to hear it, but I hope that he will recognise that there is a potential unfairness in relation to the estates of people with low incomes that realise capital gains after the individual’s death, typically when the estate includes a property.
If the Exchequer Secretary feels unable to accept the amendment, will he agree to reflect on the matter and consider whether it might be possible to address what would certainly be an unfairness in some cases in the next Finance Bill later in the year?
Mr Gauke
The amendment would set the capital gains tax rate at 18% for personal representatives of the deceased for the first £10,000 of gains, while retaining the 28% rate for gains above that level and for trustees. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for the explanation of the thinking behind it. As he said, the matter was raised by the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales made a similar point, stating that it would be appropriate to tax the personal representatives of a deceased person in the same way as basic rate taxpayers because it is a completely different situation to that of a trust.
We believe that the treatment of personal representatives in the Bill is appropriate. The amendment would add complexity and could give rise to unfair results or avoidance opportunities. The function of personal representatives is very similar to that of trustees. They have a duty to realise the assets of the deceased person on behalf of the heirs or legatees, and it should be their primary objective to complete their duties as quickly as possible so that the assets of the estate are distributed to those people without undue delay.
The amendment could provide an incentive for personal representatives to hold on to an asset while it appreciated, so that they could sell the asset and pay tax at 18% on the gain, rather than passing the asset directly on to an heir or legatee with a potential liability of 28%. There is no reason to give that sort of incentive to increase the value of a legatee’s inheritance by reducing the capital gains tax due.
I appreciate the manner in which the shadow Minister raised the matter and identified the problem. Quite fairly, he was somewhat tentative about the potential solution set out in the amendment, which I appreciate was of a probing nature. As I understand it, it is possible for personal representatives to pass assets to the heirs, so they could pay at 18% on the gains if appropriate. I will reflect further on the right hon. Gentleman’s points, but as I believe he recognises, amendment 30 has its weaknesses. It could give rise to avoidance opportunities and some unfair results, and consequently I urge him to withdraw it. However, I am grateful for his comments on the amendment.
Stephen Timms
I am happy not to force a vote, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Andrew George
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I am pleased that, unlike the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), he chose not to bait the Liberal Democrats tonight. At this late hour, it would perhaps not be a good idea to respond to the rather combative approach taken by the right hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks. I shall merely point out that the Labour party, which claims to be the champion of the working poor, created a capital gains tax environment in which the cleaners of wealthy bankers were paying a higher marginal rate of tax than the bankers themselves. That is no doubt a cause of great embarrassment to the previous Government, so I do not think the Liberal Democrats need take any lectures from Labour Members on this issue.
Reducing the capital gains tax rate from 40% to 18% had many unintended consequences for communities across the country, including my own, which sucked in a lot more second home ownership. The more advantageous tax environment enabled more people to purchase second homes, and this made the housing environment, particularly for affordable homes, a great deal worse in many parts of the country. It is worth responding to the right hon. Gentleman: if he wishes to bait, we can certainly fight back. As for the questions he asked, most were directed at those on the Treasury Bench. The intention behind the starred amendments—I cannot refer to those standing in my name—was to probe the Government about the purpose of and background to the decision to set the capital gains tax rate at 28%.
The Exchequer Secretary has done an excellent job of responding to the issues raised this evening. I previously put questions to him—about his Department’s economic modelling to determine the level of capital gains tax; what research or impact assessments he undertook before deciding to roll forward with the capital gains tax proposals; and the Department’s estimates of the revenue accruing to the Exchequer from capital gains tax if the income tax rates for those with an income above the higher rate threshold were set at a range of different levels—which he answered on 7 July. Unfortunately, I was not given the requisite information to make an adequate assessment of the likely impact of this particular measure in contrast to the setting of capital gains tax at another threshold.
I put questions to my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary in the Budget debate—on 1 July, I believe, but I might have to check that. I asked him why the capital gains tax rate had been set at 28% and not a higher rate. The answer was that there is a law of diminishing returns. By the time that level is reached, the return to the Treasury would be significantly less, making it not worthwhile to take it beyond that particular level. Unfortunately, we do not have the statistical or factual basis on which to make that assessment.
Partly in response to the right hon. Member for East Ham, who commented on the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitments in the context of the level at which the threshold should be set, we have to address ourselves to the lack of evidence and information that the previous Government provided. The information on which many policy decisions were taken might well have been unreliable Treasury estimates at the time.
In conclusion, I urge the Exchequer Secretary to provide a little more information in response to my previous questions, which I think would help us all to understand rather better why the capital gains tax rate has been set at 28% and not at some other level. That would help to reassure us that it is not going to attract those who would have had to pay income tax at a much higher level if they had not simply transferred their assets into capital.
Mr Gauke
Clause 2 and schedule 1 introduce the changes to capital gains tax from 23 June 2010, as we have heard. The coalition agreement involved a commitment by the Government to align capital gains tax to levels similar or close to those applied to income, while providing generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activity.
Within the Treasury team, we looked at various options as to how best to achieve that. The conclusion we reached, however, was that contained in the schedule. For individuals, the rate remains 18% when their income and gains for the tax year do not exceed their income tax basic rate band. Above that level, the rate is increased to 28%. Therefore, someone who is already paying income tax at the 40% or 50% rates will pay 28% on all their gains. As was mentioned in an earlier debate, the 28% rate applies to trustees and personal representatives, who will pay capital gains tax at that rate on all their gains. That ensures that trusts are not used to shelter personal gains from the higher rate of capital gains tax.
Mr Gauke
I believe that the overall effects for this period balance out, but I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the self-assessment return and guidance notes to help people to work out their final liability. For the tax year 2010-11, HMRC has worked to automate more of the online self-assessment processes in order to help customers with the changes. The software will be available for customers to use from 6 April 2011. The improvements will be conveyed to third-party software developers at the usual time, enabling them to modify their products in good time. Full guidance will be available in the self-assessment notes on HMRC’s website and through its helplines.
Andrew George
May I return the Exchequer Secretary to the subject of the “composition of income” behavioural impact that he described earlier? He referred to the tax yield in forthcoming years. Is the tax yield for every reduction of one percentage point assumed as a continuing line beyond the 28%? What happens to the behavioural change after that?
Mr Gauke
The assumption is that there is an ongoing gain—that we will gain more in income tax as a consequence of the rise in the CGT rate.
The reason why there is no yield this year has suddenly dawned on me. We do not get the receipts for capital gains tax through self-assessment immediately; it is only in future that CGT will be paid through the self-assessment process.
Stephen Timms
The Minister has made the point, however, that most of the gain is in fact income tax, which surely would score in the coming year?
Mr Gauke
I think we will see more of that behavioural effect as time goes by, but I am not sure that that will come through immediately. In some cases, it will depend on when the additional income will be crystallised or realised. I think that is the explanation, but if I have anything to add I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
There is a time lag, which is why the receipts are not shown for this year. There is also a bringing forward of benefit because, as opposed to the lock-in, there is an advance disposal of the assets which would not otherwise have taken place. Also, of course, there will be a release of income tax, rather than a waiting for a capital tax and putting off the delay that would come from the capital gain.
Mr Gauke
I will write to my hon. Friend to explain further why there is no yield in the current year, but I am very grateful for his expertise in this matter.
Questions were also asked about serial entrepreneurs who cannot claim entrepreneur’s relief and defer gains under the enterprise investment scheme. People can now choose between claiming entrepreneur’s relief and paying capital gains tax at 10% or deferring a tax charge by reinvesting under the EIS and paying 18% or 28% when the postponed gain comes into charge. If they claim entrepreneur’s relief they can still invest in EIS companies. The CGT deferral relief will not be available, but income tax relief under the EIS could still be available if the conditions are met. Serial entrepreneurs who have used up their lifetime limit of entrepreneur’s relief will be able to claim the EIS deferral relief on gains above the limit. Allowing individuals to claim both entrepreneur’s relief and deferred gains will be highly complex and is inconsistent with the aim of simplifying the tax system.
The right hon. Member for East Ham also asked whether Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is planning any extra education about the changes for customers and their advisers. HMRC will talk to representative bodies about what extra guidance is required. It will see what practical help it can give to agents generally through the “working together” agent network, and it will look at working with the media and interest groups to raise awareness among individuals who may be affected by the changes.
This is a reform that protects the Exchequer while ensuring that those on lower incomes are protected and the recovery is safeguarded. We have acted in a way that is in the spirit of the coalition agreement. I do not think any Member on the Government Benches would want to raise taxes beyond a level that would maximise revenue—revenue that is, after all, used to fund a substantial increase in the income tax threshold, taking 880,000 people out of income tax. If we had raised the level further, or if we had raised it by less, we would not have been able to do so much in that particular area. Consequently, we believe that 28% is the right level. We do not intend to return to this matter, and I ask that schedule 1 be agreed.
Stephen Timms
I do not propose to press this to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—(Mr Newmark.)
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.
Finance Bill
David Gauke Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Goodman
In order to achieve that difference in the debt to GDP ratio four years hence, we will see cuts of 25% across most Departments, four times greater than those that Geoffrey Howe tried to impose on the country in the early 1980s. Even so, the tax burden will also rise by £33 billion. We have to question the judgment of a Government who are taking that amount of money out of the British economy.
Another issue is whether the Budget will promote growth. It is clear that in overall terms it will not do so. That is clear from the revisions to the forecasts made by the OBR, which show that growth is down and unemployment is up. Given the huge cuts proposed in the public sector—we heard about the first slice yesterday to the Building Schools for the Future programme—not only will the number of public sector jobs be reduced, but the knock-on effect will be significant increases in job losses in the private sector. The Government’s contention that 2 million private sector jobs can be created is just not credible. That is far more than was achieved in the 1990s when interest rates were cut aggressively and the pound depreciated by 25%. In those years, it took seven years for employment to grow by 1 million. Obviously, interest rates cannot be cut aggressively in the current situation, and it is highly unlikely we will see a depreciation of the pound against the euro, given that the European economies—our largest market—are in the state they are in. Under the Labour Government, 2.5 million jobs were created over 13 years, but that included extra jobs in the public sector, a housing boom and huge increases in financial services. The Government are now putting forward a prospectus that is simply not tenable. The argument that we have to attend to the level of the deficit because private sector investment is being crowded out by the public sector is also not credible, given that the economy has 4% spare capacity.
I turn to the measures in the Bill. On corporation tax, the coalition Government are cutting the rates—this is a long-standing pattern with the Tories—while cutting the allowances. What will that do for growth? How will that enable the economy to be rebalanced in the way the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills says is so important? Cutting allowances for investment is bad for manufacturing. The small and medium-sized firms in my constituency, where there is a lot of engineering and small manufacturing, provide several examples demonstrating what the problems are. Over the past month, I have visited two firms that make packaging, which means they supply the retail industry. Obviously, if shops are not doing very well, those firms are not doing very well. Clearly, they need a lot of big machinery to make the packaging, and if they are to continue to have the new, up-to-date machinery to do that, they need investment allowances.
Not so long ago, I visited a building and joinery firm that also has a lot of expensive machinery that it needs to keep up to date, and it also needs these investment allowances. Its contracts are largely dependent on the public sector and on schools and police stations being refurbished, so these cuts in the public sector will have huge knock-on effects in the private sector. Let us take a final example: a chemicals firm making sealant for aircraft. How will it fare with cuts to the defence budget, which is one of the budgets not being protected? Once again we have a complete picture that is totally incoherent. What the Government offer in practice and what they say they want to achieve are two completely different things.
Many hon. Members have commented on the unfairness of the low level of the bank levy and on the fact that the banks will gain more from the corporation tax cuts than they will lose from the increase in the bank levy. However, no one has asked why the bank levy is only being introduced from 1 January 2011. I would like Treasury Ministers to explain why there is a delay in the introduction of the bank levy. Surely that gives the banks a lot of time to move their assets around and avoid this tax, at which, as we all know, the financial services are particularly adept.
Helen Goodman
The Minister shakes his head. They clearly do not know the answer.
The Conservative-Liberal coalition cannot agree on its environmental policy either, which is presumably why, rather than acting on environmental taxes, we now have yet another commission to look into the climate change levy. Once again, therefore, a potentially progressive measure is being put on the backburner. We do not know when it will happen. We do not know when we will see progress on it.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the unfairness of VAT. The Government claim that they had no choice, but of course they had a choice, and they have made it. Their choice has been to change the national insurance regime and replace the increase in national insurance with an increase in VAT. However, one of the things that the Government will not admit is that VAT is also a tax on jobs. VAT also drives a wedge between the cost on employers for the goods and service that employees buy, and what they pay for them, so the notion that we can have an increase in VAT without seeing an impact on the number of jobs in the economy is yet another fantasy.
The Government have not explained what they are doing about the lower rate of VAT, on essentials, and many Opposition Members would like some clarification on that.
The third and final issue that I would like to discuss is fairness in the income tax and benefits system. The Liberal Democrats say that raising the personal allowance is their major attempt to be fair to poor people. The attempt is being made, but it has not produced the upshot that the Liberal Democrats are looking for. Rather, it has failed, because they have not taken account of the interaction with the tax credit reductions and the cuts in welfare benefits.
The distribution figures on page 66 of the Red Book purport to show what the position in the Budget is. However, a day or so later, we all discovered that chart A2, entitled “Impact of all measures as a per cent of net income by income distribution”, in fact included not just the measures taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in announcing his June Budget, but the measures taken previously by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, which were jumbled up with them. When those figures were stripped out and separated by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, we could see that the distributional impacts were totally different. Whereas my right hon. Friend’s Budget took less than 0.5% from the poorest and almost 7% from the richest, the June Budget took 2.5% from the poorest and 0.5% from the richest, so the claim of fairness is completely fraudulent.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
We have had nine and a half hours of debate, we have heard many speeches from Labour Members—to be precise, I should perhaps say that we have heard one speech many times—and we have heard not one word of apology. We debate this Bill in the context of a crisis in our public finances, yet we do not see the two right hon. Members most responsible for that here: the shadow Chancellor and the right honourable—and absent—Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). Over the past few years, few contributions have been made by Labour Members on Finance Bills; usually we heard a contribution from the then Member for Wolverhampton South West, Rob Marris, who is a well-respected figure. We heard many speeches from Labour Members today, but I must say that although the quantity has increased, the quality has deteriorated. There was one exception: the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) made a fine maiden speech.
We also heard three other excellent maiden speeches. One was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), who pointed out that we do not help the poor by piling up debt. Another was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer). I was particularly delighted to hear that, because I grew up in that town and I remember that even in the days of substantial Conservative majorities it was a Labour-held seat. That goes to show what a fantastic effort he has put in there. I was also delighted to hear the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), whom I have known for nearly 20 years. I also wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), the hon. Members for Solihull (Lorely Burt) and for St Ives (Andrew George), and my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), for their contributions.
We debate this Finance Bill in the context of a need for a further fiscal tightening. This country is borrowing more than at any time in our peacetime history. We have seen real turmoil in the markets, with concerns about sovereign debt contagion and with Spain, Portugal and Greece having their credit ratings downgraded. We have seen the independent Office for Budget Responsibility downgrade our predecessors’ less than independent growth forecasts and increase the estimate of the structural deficit.
May I respond to the point about Sir Alan Budd by saying that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) may find that if she spoke to her colleague—or perhaps former colleague—Lord Myners, she would find that in response to his freedom of information request we sent him a copy of Alan Budd’s contract, which makes it clear that it was a three-month contract? It also has to be said that in providing credibility for the public finances, he achieved more in three months than the Labour party achieved in 13 years.
It was imperative that the new Government moved further and faster in reducing our deficit and putting the public finances on a firmer footing. What were the risks if we did not do that? At best we would have had a substantial structural deficit at the end of the Parliament, and we would have paid more than £70 billion a year in debt interest. At worst, we ran a risk of the UK being swept up in a sovereign debt crisis, of a downgrading in our credit rating, of a loss of confidence by international investors, of interest rates having to rise in response, and as a consequence, of any recovery being choked off as credit became more expensive and less available. This was a risk that the coalition Government were not prepared to run, even if others were. It was necessary and overdue that we had a Government who were willing to take decisive action, to get a grip of the situation, and to set out a clear and credible path out of this inherited mess. That is what we have done.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman had nine and a half hours to take part in this debate. I am not going to give way to him now.
It is right that we should focus our attention on spending cuts. That is the best way of ensuring a successful fiscal consolidation; none the less, it was also necessary to raise taxes. Our challenge was to do so in a way that was fair and enhanced the competitiveness of the UK economy, so that we could encourage the necessary private sector growth.
We will open Britain up for business by creating a more competitive system of corporation tax. We will reduce the main rate from 28% today to just 24% over four years. Rather than putting the small profits rate up, as our predecessors planned to do, we will reduce it to 20%. That proposal has been widely welcomed by business groups such as the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors.
For the first time we have set out the distributional impact of all the Government’s tax and benefit changes that will affect the public over the next two years. It is clear that we have ensured that every part of society will make a contribution to reducing the deficit while protecting the most vulnerable. Even with some tough decisions, we have ensured that child poverty will not increase in the next two years, through a significant above-inflation increase in child tax credit.
We have not heard proposals from the Opposition about how they would raise more tax. To be fair, one or two Opposition Members, even former members of the Government, said, “We should have raised more from the bank levy,” somewhat forgetting that when the Labour party was in government it refused to introduce a bank levy.
I know that there is sincere concern on both sides of the House that those who are materially deprived may have to pay disproportionately more in tax as a consequence of the change in VAT, but I urge all hon. Members to look at the academic debate on this matter. If they want to see a correlation between material deprivation and income, the best way of looking at it is to look at the expenditure basis. The fact is that income distribution will always reflect the fact that there are groups in society with volatile incomes who are not as materially deprived as others, but who will from time to time earn less and at other times earn more. As a consequence—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. If the Minister wanted to give way, he would do so. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to recognise that the Minister is not going to give way.
Mr Gauke
We are not going to take any lectures from the Opposition. Remember, theirs is the party that doubled the 10p tax rate. Of course, at that point the Government did not produce a distributional analysis. I have asked officials to look into this, and if we look at the distributional impacts of the changes in income tax announced in 2007, an interesting fact emerges: the bottom five deciles all lose and the top five deciles all win. That was the consequence of the policy of the right hon. and absent Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, and some of us remember Labour Members cheering when that policy was announced.
What a contrast with the coalition Government. Whereas the Labour Government raised income tax on the poorest, we have taken 880,000 people out of income tax. What a contrast on the deficit, as well. I do not believe that when the Labour Government came to power in 1997 they intended to leave the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history, but the fact is that they did. We know it, the British people know it, and deep down, Labour Members must know it too, but the more we listen to them—in complete denial, opposing each and every measure to control the deficit, failing to engage in how we solve the problem—the more absurd and out of touch they look. That will not impress many people.
The British people know that this Government are sensibly and pragmatically clearing up a mess left by our predecessors. I say to Labour Members: accept that fact, engage constructively in what we do about it, but above all, apologise for it. It is clear, however, that we will not get any constructive engagement from Labour Members. Instead, we see Labour’s age-old habit of failing to confront the hard truths: self-indulgent, short-sighted, with passion and resolution marching into the wilderness—irresponsible in government, irrelevant in opposition.
This country deserves better than that. The British people know that sorting out the mess will not be easy. Yes, sacrifices will have to be made, but in this Finance Bill we are making tough choices—choices that will restore our public finances, choices that enhance not diminish our competitiveness, and choices that are fair to all sections of society. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Finance Bill 2010
David Gauke Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Finance Bill will be published on 1 July.
Explanatory notes on the Bill will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office and placed in the Libraries of both Houses on that day. Copies of the explanatory notes will be available on the Treasury’s website.